Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Science and Innovation

Andrew Miller: What assessment he has made of the potential impact on the economy of Government encouragement of investment in science and innovation.

Helen Southworth: What his assessment is of the impact on the economy of investment in science and innovation.

Gordon Brown: With science spending doubling since 1997 and research and development credits now worth £1.5 billion to business, Britain has seen 200 spin-off businesses created each year compared with 70 10 years ago. To support Britain as the world's best location for science, the Minister for Science and Innovation is announcing today that he will build on our proposed new institute for energy and environmental research and the single budget for health research by inviting the Royal Society to create new international science fellowships to bring the world's best scientists to the United Kingdom.
	The House might be interested to know on the day of the national service of thanksgiving to mark Her Majesty the Queen's 80th birthday that, in addition to a crown piece to celebrate her diamond wedding anniversary, there will be two £2 coins, one to mark the Union of 1707 and a second to mark the abolition of the slave trade in 1807.

Andrew Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent visit to Ellesmere Port, which was truly welcomed by the Vauxhall work force and management. What steps does he intend to take to enable UK manufacturers such as Vauxhall to position themselves so that the UK can take a leading role in future vehicles beyond the internal combustion engine?

Gordon Brown: To visit Ellesmere Port, to have confidence that the workers there can win the next model for Ellesmere Port and to know that 1.6 million cars are now being produced in Britain is to have faith in the future of British manufacturing, as long as it is modern and efficient.
	In addition to all the other measures that we are taking, including the new institute to study environmental and energy technologies, there will be capital allowances available for investment in environmental technologies related to fuel. We are also working with Brazil, South Africa and Mozambique to develop bioethanol from sugar, which will contribute to our meeting our renewables obligation. We are determined to have the most environmentally efficient means of producing fuel in future.

Helen Southworth: The Northwest Development Agency has committed more than £50 million to develop Daresbury science and innovation campus. We now have a return on that investment, with 22 ultra-high-tech companies based at the centre. Will my right hon. Friend come to see world-class science in action at Daresbury and discuss further investment opportunities?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has worked hard to promote new investment for that important scientific campus. I understand that the Northwest Development Agency is investing about £50 million in that campus, which is one of two science and innovation campuses. Not only are 22 businesses operating there, but considerable new infrastructure investment is being made to attract businesses for the future. That reflects our recognition that, in modern manufacturing, we need to promote advanced science and technologies so that in future we lead the world in key technologies. The north-west is an important part of the new investment.

Vincent Cable: How does the Chancellor explain the fact that, on the one hand, 80 university science departments have closed in the past six years because of the squeeze on university research and teaching of science while, on the other, he is handing out £1.5 billion of taxpayers' money every year to private companies, which have access to shareholders' funds and capital markets and which have rewarded his generosity by increasing R and D not one iota? Is there not a fundamental lack of coherence in the Government's approach to science and innovation?

Gordon Brown: The lack of coherence is in the Liberal tax and spending plans that were announced only a few days ago. There seems to be a £20 billion gap in the spending plans of the hon. Gentleman's party.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the £1.5 billion in R and D tax credits so that Britain is a scientific leader in future. I hope that he supports our doubling of the science budget for the United Kingdom, so that instead of being behind the rest of the world as we were under the Conservatives, we are catching up and hope to lead the world. I hope that he also supports the money that we are putting into universities. It seems to me that in every part of the country the Liberals are making promises to spend on universities, science and R and D tax credits, but he must now explain his £20 billion spending gap.

Michael Fallon: Who is the Chancellor fooling when he boasts about extra investment in science, given that the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills told the Select Committee yesterday that overall funding was going to get tighter? If total education and science spending is to increase more slowly than transport spending, is it any wonder that we end up with 15 million people who the Secretary of State for Education and Skills says would not pass maths GCSE?

Gordon Brown: We will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman. When we came into power, spending per pupil was £2,500. It is now £5,000 per pupil. We have doubled spending per pupil. When we came into power, spending on university students had been falling under the Conservative Government. It is now rising as a result of what we are doing. We have set the ambition that we will increase spending per pupil. By 2011, capital spending per pupil will equal that in private schools. I would have thought that Opposition Members would want to support our ambitions in this area.

Barry Sheerman: Will my right hon. Friend remember when he listens to Twickenham Man that Twickenham does not have a university? Huddersfield does have a university. I was with Huddersfield, Bradford and York universities only last Friday. They are enthusiastic about the innovation, the science, the technology and the investment that has been going on over the past nine years. Will my right hon. Friend remember that I was told, "You don't look at a university campus to find an entrepreneur."? We need new ways to bring more entrepreneurial spirit and activity on to university campuses.

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Education and Skills Select Committee. He will be aware of the fact which I set out initially in the main answer to the question. It is that 200 companies are spun off from universities every year. That is three times what was achieved under the Conservative Government before us. There are 20 companies now listed on the stock exchange—this is in the past two years—that have a combined capital of £1 billion. The idea that Britain is not moving forward, as has been suggested by the shadow Chancellor, in high technology and science-based industries is completely wrong. We are making considerable advances and we shall continue to do so, but it depends on us making the commitment to both education and science, which we have done, but which other parties seem unprepared to do.

David Simpson: I am sure that the Chancellor will join me in congratulating three schools in my constituency that have received prestigious awards under the young enterprise programme for innovation. There has been a difficulty with funding throughout the United Kingdom. Has that problem been rectified? Lastly, I wish the right hon. Gentleman well for his trip to the Province on Monday.

Gordon Brown: I am looking forward to visiting Northern Ireland on Monday and meeting representatives of all political parties. No doubt I shall hear some spending representations from many of them.
	The enterprise insight programme in Northern Ireland has been a tremendous success. It has encouraged young people to take up business opportunities and many have started their own businesses once they have left school or college. At the same time, throughout the United Kingdom, thousands of school children are involved in enterprise programmes, particularly as part of enterprise week. We are determined to continue to fund them. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to talk about funding for his area.

Climate Change (Taxation)

Anne Snelgrove: What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the climate change levy on carbon emissions.

Angela Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the climate change levy on carbon emissions.

David Wright: What his policy is on using taxation to tackle climate change; and if he will make a statement.

John Healey: The climate change levy is playing a crucial role in enabling the UK to meet its Kyoto targets. An independent valuation conducted recently by Cambridge Econometrics has examined the levy. It concluded that the levy would, by 2010, deliver annual carbon savings of 3.5 million tonnes. That is far in advance of the forecast of 2 million tonnes of carbon when we introduced the levy.

Anne Snelgrove: This is an issue of great concern to growing numbers of my constituents, who are concerned that their children and grandchildren's futures will be marred by global warming. Given that the climate change levy package has reduced emissions of carbon by 16.5 million tonnes and is a vital part of meeting our Kyoto commitments, how does the UK's progress on meeting these commitments compare with our international colleagues?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. The UK led the way with introducing the climate change levy, and now it is the sort of measure that is required throughout the European Union. We led the way in introducing an emissions trading scheme, and we led the way also in setting up and strengthening the European Commission's scheme. We are leading as well with our commitment to Kyoto. Along with the Netherlands and Sweden, we are one of only three EU member states, of 15 countries, in being on track to meet our Kyoto targets.
	On climate change, the test for all parties is whether they will back the domestic action that is needed in Britain. In addition, can they wield the international influence that is required to secure the international action that is needed even more badly?

Angela Smith: I am sure that every Government Member accepts that the levy plays a significant role in reducing carbon emissions. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an industry-friendly measure, given the incentives that it provides to improve energy efficiency and thus the cost-effectiveness of British business?

John Healey: My hon. Friend will remember that when we introduced the climate change levy, we also introduced a 0.3 per cent. cut in employers' national insurance contributions. She will be aware of the launch of a new campaign by the Carbon Trust, which is linked to the climate change levy. British businesses will waste more than £500 million over the summer if they fail to adopt energy efficiency failures, and the campaign demonstrates that the trust can help them by delivering an average 15 per cent. saving in energy efficiency and business costs. Clearly, the climate change levy package can help business and the environment, so I hope that it receives support from Members on both sides of the House.

David Wright: How can we better use the tax system to promote microgeneration in residential properties? The technology is expensive to install initially, and the payback period is very long, so can we incentivise home owners to invest in microgeneration technology at the front end to avoid that long payback period?

John Healey: My hon. Friend will be aware that we reduced VAT rates on all significant microgeneration technologies that are installed professionally in domestic or charitable buildings. That is the extent of the action that we can take under existing VAT rules, but he will know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget extra support to try to boost microgeneration technologies and build the market in Britain. Demand is still too low for the technology to take off, but we want that to change. As a Government, we are prepared to try to help, as we want the technology to spread much more widely across Britain.

Paul Goodman: The Chancellor recently claimed that one of his favourite memories is Paul Gascoigne's goal against Scotland in 1996, but Whelan claims that, after the goal, the Chancellor was so upset that he would not speak to him for weeks. Which of the Chancellor's claims is more credible—his claim that people support his climate change levy, rather than a proper tax or levy on carbon, or his claim that he will support England tonight?

John Healey: There are several questions at the heart of the challenge of climate change. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the climate change levy has delivered greater reductions in carbon emissions than forecast and that almost a fifth of carbon savings in our Kyoto commitment have been delivered by the climate change levy package? Does he therefore accept that his right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) was wrong when he said in the House:
	"We regard the climate change levy as an aberration that should never have been brought before Parliament"?—[ Official Report, 18 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 322.]

Julia Goldsworthy: Does the Minister consider it appropriate that revenues from green taxes as a proportion of the total tax take have fallen while emissions continue to rise?

John Healey: The hon. Lady, typically for a Liberal, takes a simplistic view. I have two things to say to her. First, the point of environmental taxation is not, contrary to the Liberals' view, taxation for taxation's sake: it is about the change in behaviour and opinion that those taxes can achieve. It is wrong to look at taxation simply in terms of the total tax receipts, because environmental taxes can influence behaviour and lead to a reduction in receipts. Environmental taxes can be used, as can discounts for biofuels and climate change agreements, to achieve significant environmental ends without raising the environmental tax take. Secondly, as the hon. Lady looks at the big black hole in her spending and tax plans and the £8 billion of environmental taxes that she would impose on people, I urge her to take a more sophisticated view, and we look forward to her plans in future.

Science Funding (North-East)

Kevan Jones: What recent discussions he has had on Government funding for science in the north-east.

Stephen Timms: I have received a number of representations on regional funding, including on science and innovation, and will consider them in our work on public spending over the coming year.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Durham county council and the County Durham Development Company on their NETPark project, a major science park being developed in County Durham? Does he agree that it is important that such innovation has the full backing of all Government agencies, including the regional development agency? Will he look into why £4 million of funding has been withdrawn from the new plastic electronics centre at the site for budgetary reasons?

Stephen Timms: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Durham county council and I agree that it is an important issue for the region's productivity. That is why I welcome the decision of One NorthEast to commit £200 million over five years to building up the scientific research and innovation of the north-east. I will certainly look further into the particular case that he mentioned. Last week, I met the chief executive of AddIt North-East, whose role is to pool public sector communications demand as a lever to build a world-class infrastructure for the region. That lever is being applied with particular success in the north-east.

G8 Finance Ministers Meeting

Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement on the outcome of the most recent meeting of G8 finance ministers.

Gordon Brown: The G8 communiqué called for an enhanced dialogue between oil producers and oil consumers to bring greater stability to the oil and energy markets, supported the education for all initiative on international development and advanced market commitments for health. The communiqué also called for an urgent agreement on world trade to thwart the dangers of protectionism.

Mark Lazarowicz: My right hon. Friend referred to the education for all initiative and he will be aware that thousands of schools up and down the country, including Leith Walk, Trinity and Granton schools in my own constituency, supported the "My friend needs a teacher" campaign. What positive steps were Finance Ministers able to take to advance the commitments made on this matter at Gleneagles last year?

Gordon Brown: Hundreds of schools around the country are now linking up with schools in developing countries, and the Department for International Development is providing support to enable those schools to have teacher exchanges or contact between the pupils in the different countries. I applaud the initiative of the schools in my hon. Friend's constituency. As to progressing the education for all initiative, 110 million children are not going to school today, two thirds of whom are girls. For $10 billion a year, we could provide education for every child. As the House knows, the British Government have set aside £8 billion over the next 10 years to make possible a major education initiative that will help millions of children into school, but we will need the support of other countries and also the fast-track initiative of the World Bank to expand to achieve that. We discussed with other countries on Saturday how to secure a co-ordinated campaign to enhance the number of children going to school. That will be a subject for the G8 meeting next month, which the Prime Minister will attend, and will also feature in the September meetings of the World Bank, where we hope to reach further agreements. It is a major international initiative and I hope that, by this time next year, we will have signed up all the major countries to make it possible.

Brooks Newmark: Did the G8 Ministers discuss the importance of education in preparing our children for the highly competitive global economy in which we live, or did the Chancellor tell G8 Ministers the truth about his pledge instead, which is, in the words of the permanent secretary in the Department for Education and Skills, that it is a "pipe dream" and that
	"no research was being done"
	on it? He said that it was designed for the next day's headlines, not for the next generation of school children.

Gordon Brown: What the hon. Gentleman says is completely wrong. I announced in the Budget new money for capital spending on schools, so that each pupil in state schools would have exactly the same amount of capital spending invested in him or her as is the case in private schools.  [Interruption.] They do not think that investment in buildings or computers or equipment is important.  [Interruption.] When we came to power, the average investment per pupil in buildings and equipment was £100 a year; today it is £1,000 a year—a tenfold rise. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own party's policies, which have consistently tried to cut expenditure on education.

John McFall: Will the Chancellor continue his commitment made at Gleneagles last year to halve world poverty by 2015? If the wealthiest countries can increase their spending from £20 billion a year to £200 billion a year over the next decade, we can indeed reach that target. If his fellow Finance Ministers think that is challenging, will they look at global arms expenditure, which is £900 billion? In the comprehensive spending review that he will announce later this month, will he give a commitment that the United Kingdom will do more than its bit to ensure that the target of halving world poverty by 2015 is achieved?

Gordon Brown: International development spending in the United Kingdom increased last year and this year and will increase next year. We are on course to meet our targets for international development spending. World development aid is increasing. We have signed the agreements that make it possible to write off multilateral debt, so in total we expect up to £170 billion of debt to be written off. The condition of that is that the money will go to education, health and anti-poverty programmes in the developing countries. At next month's meeting of the G8, we are determined to push forward so that every country agrees that the commitments that we made for the millennium development goals on poverty, education and health are met. I hope that that is the common view in all parts of the House.

Theresa Villiers: Did the G8 Finance Ministers discuss the fact that in 2005 Britain recorded its slowest economic growth for 13 years? In the first quarter of this year, our growth put us 15th out of the 23 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development states that have reported so far. We are below the OECD average, below the G7 average, behind the EU 25 and no better than the poorly performing eurozone. We may be ahead of slow-growing France, Germany and Italy, but when will we start catching up with the world's successful economies?

Gordon Brown: The Conservatives seem to be banking on a recession. They must face up to the fact that growth is strengthening this year and will be faster in the second half of the year than in the first half. Growth since 1997 is far faster than it was in the 18 years before 1997, and we are the country that has low inflation, low interest rates, high employment and sustained growth—the opposite of what happened with two major recessions in the Conservative years. The hon. Lady will also have to face up to the fact that, to maintain our levels of growth, we will need the investment in education and science and the investment in the infrastructure for the future, so her announcement at the time of the Budget that she would not support the additional public spending will have to be revisited. I hope that she will agree that she has to do that.

Theresa Villiers: The Chancellor is in denial about the way everything is going in the economy. If everything is going so well, why has Derek Scott, the former economic adviser to the Prime Minister, criticised the Chancellor's "higher taxes", "intrusive micromanagement", "deteriorating fiscal position" and "burdensome regulation"? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with Derek Scott, a Labour insider, that Labour's record is "mixed", "depressing" and "dispiriting"?

Gordon Brown: If things are going so badly, why did the shadow Chancellor praise us only a few months ago for our record of macro-economic stability? Why did he praise us for having an economic record in creating stability, which his party had never achieved? If things are going so badly on regulation, why did the Heritage Foundation, which is beloved of the right wing of the Conservative party, report that we are a more liberal and deregulated economy now than in 1997, when we took office? If things are going so badly, why are there more people in work, why are interest rates low, why are there more home owners, and why is there more prosperity in this country than ever the Conservatives could achieve?

Debt Cancellation

Chris McCafferty: What recent assessment he has made of progress on cancellation of the debt of the world's poorest countries.

Edward Balls: At their spring meeting, the World Bank governors confirmed the 100 per cent. debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries, matching the debt relief that the International Monetary Fund has been providing since January. World Bank debt cancellation will be implemented on 1 July, the first day of its financial year. Debt relief is already making a difference in Zambia, for example, where the Government are using the proceeds of debt relief to abolish health fees for rural populations.

Chris McCafferty: How will my hon. Friend ensure that the funds released to the poorest countries through debt cancellation will be used for basic services to achieve the millennium development goals, particularly reproductive health services for HIV prevention, the reduction of child and maternal mortality and gender empowerment?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right to press us on those issues. She has considerable expertise and a fine record of campaigning on those issues over many years. She has mentioned reproductive health, and she knows that unprotected sex is the most common cause of HIV/AIDS infection, which currently affects millions in developing countries, including 2 million children around the world. Worldwide, less than one in five people have access to HIV prevention services. Last year, DFID spent £242.9 million on improving maternal health services and reproductive health services, but, as I have highlighted in the case of Zambia, releasing resources for investment in preventive health care is the particular focus of discussions. We must do everything that we can to fight the scourge of AIDS around the world.

Mark Hoban: The Chancellor has highlighted the importance of trade as well as of debt cancellation as a means of lifting people out of poverty. The Government know that a good result from the Doha round will lift more people out of poverty and improve the economies of particular countries. When did the Chancellor last meet Peter Mandelson face to face to put that case?

Edward Balls: We are in regular touch with commissioners on all those issues. The successful completion of the round is extremely important. Although we made progress at the end of last year, the situation is still disappointing. The hon. Gentleman is right to press for further action, and we will not lower our ambitions. In particular, agriculture is key—we need an ambitious outcome to the round, which means an ambitious outcome on agriculture. We will continue to press commissioners and Trade Ministers around the world to get an outcome as soon as possible.

Kitty Ussher: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating organisations such as Jubilee 2000 on their work over many years in highlighting the need to cancel debt in the poorest countries of the world? Does he agree that that type of people power can be incredibly effective both at home and abroad? Will he therefore update the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is at least two questions.

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Make Poverty History was a truly brilliant campaign—it was probably the most successful political campaign that I have ever seen in terms of mobilising, in particular, young people to support international social justice. There has also been some fine campaigning by hon. Members. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr. Clarke) is promoting a private Member's Bill that has Government support tomorrow. The Bill will make sure that we continue to make progress on the millennium development goals, and I urge all hon. Members to be here tomorrow to support it.

Tax Credits

Malcolm Bruce: What steps he is taking to tackle overpayment of tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: End of year adjustments are an integral part of the flexible system that responds to families' circumstances as they change. Eliminating the need for adjustments would require a move to a fixed system, where eligibility would be based on the previous year's income and circumstances, which would diminish responsiveness. The Government have introduced administrative enhancements and policy developments to improve the operation of the tax credits system, which includes measures to reduce overpayments.

Malcolm Bruce: I hope that that works. Last month, the Paymaster General wrote to me confirming that, after an examination of the transcripts of a constituent's telephone calls to the Revenue, the Revenue acknowledged that it had incorrectly advised the constituent, that the constituent would not have to repay the sums involved and that the constituent would be compensated. Given the clear evidence that staff are finding it difficult to cope with the system, the lack of staff training, the evidence of fraud and the injustice to so many thousands of citizens who have claimed those credits and who have been forced to pay them back, will she acknowledge that the Revenue should always examine the transcripts and not persist in issuing denials when the mistake is usually theirs and not the constituent's?

Dawn Primarolo: Improvements to the tax credit system have been discussed in detail in this House, and I am sure that those discussions will continue. I cannot comment on the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman, but the system to determine whether an error has occurred and whether an overpayment should be written off is clearly defined and clearly followed. If he believes that that has not happened in the individual case that he has mentioned, I am happy for him to bring it to me again.

Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will realise the hardship that is caused to many families who have to repay tax credits, but does she recognise, as I do, that only a fool or a knave would ever pretend that we will get this 100 per cent. correct? I assure her that I would rather be struggling to defend overpayments than underpayments under this scheme.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend is making a very clear case. Some 6 million families are receiving tax credits, and their role in lifting 700,000 children out of poverty is making a huge contribution to all our communities. Their flexible and responsive nature is particularly important for families whose incomes fall and who therefore need more tax credits. He will know from last year's figures that 700,000 families' incomes fell significantly and they then received extra support from the tax credits system, which the system supported by the Opposition—the Liberals and the Tories—would have denied them.

Mark Francois: Yet another question on tax credits; yet another occasion on which the Chancellor has failed to defend his own failed policy. In 2004-05, almost half of the 6 million tax credit payments were wrong. This week, the Institute for Public Policy Research, Labour's favourite think-tank, produced a report that said:
	"as the system currently operates, there are real doubts about whether this is an effective policy mechanism."
	When will the Chancellor accept personal responsibility for his creation of a massively over-complicated system that is causing misery to millions of families and needs to be reformed?

Dawn Primarolo: It does not matter how much the hon. Gentleman wriggles in trying to disguise the fact that the Conservatives want to abolish tax credits and take them away from millions of families, because he cannot deny that whenever this has been discussed in the House, including by the Treasury Committee, it has been concluded that tax credits are a significant contribution to challenging and eradicating poverty. The basic policy is correct, and the administration must follow that.

David Taylor: There is no doubt that tax credits have helped millions of families—thousands in North-West Leicestershire and in every other constituency—in tackling poverty. However, can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the substantial income disregard that is being implemented is the best way of tackling poverty? Is it not at least possible that it will be a significant incentive to collusion in fraud in some cases? What assessment has been made of the cost of this new initiative?

Dawn Primarolo: First, as my hon. Friend can see, the package of announcements, including the disregard, is in the pre-Budget report books. Secondly, tax credits have two objectives: first, to assist in the eradication of poverty; and secondly, to help people to into work. The disregard is designed specifically to help people to transfer into work and to support them in that early period. Thirdly, I can give my hon. Friend the undertaking that he seeks in that the tax credits system will continue to ensure a robust compliance strategy.

Inheritance Tax

Peter Bone: What the total cost was of administering inheritance tax in each of the last five years; and what the estimated cost is for 2006-07.

Stephen Timms: The cost of collecting each pound of inheritance tax was 1.23p in 2000-01, 1.21p in 2001-02, 1.38p in 2002-03, 1.21p in 2003-04 and 1.14p in 2004-05, the most recent year for which figures are available. I do not expect a big change in the current year.

Peter Bone: Why will not the Government scrap this morally indefensible tax?

Stephen Timms: Because it is morally the right tax. Only 6 per cent. of estates paid inheritance tax last year. The zero threshold is £285,000 this year, rising to £325,000 in 2009-10. All wealth passed to spouses or civil partners is tax free. It is right to apply tax in that way and we will continue to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it should be abolished, he needs to explain where the money would come from.

Helen Goodman: Does my hon. Friend agree that any party that claims to be concerned about equal opportunities must have a fair inheritance tax regime?

Stephen Timms: I do agree; my hon. Friend is right. I expect inheritance tax to raise £3.6 billion this year. The Conservative party needs to identify the spending that would be cut or the taxes that would be raised to fill the gap.

Tax Credits

Andrew Pelling: What steps he is taking to reduce underpayments of tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs actively encourages claimants to report changes in circumstances promptly to reduce the likelihood of underpayment.

Andrew Pelling: I thank the right hon. Lady for that answer. Will she take cognisance of the Treasury Committee's suggestion that a complete analysis should be made of official error? Would that analysis be published?

Dawn Primarolo: A full statement on the strategies for tackling fraud and error will be published shortly.

David Laws: The Treasury report on tax credit fraud and error was supposed to be released last month. I understand from the Department that it has been completed. Where is it?

Dawn Primarolo: The report will be published shortly.

Science and Innovation

Si�n James: What assessment he has made of the contribution of expenditure on science to the performance of the economy; and if he will make a statement.

Stephen Timms: A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in 2001 found that a 1 per cent. increase in public research and development spending leads to a productivity rise of 0.17 per cent. There is also growing evidence of a link between effective use of information and communications technology and higher productivity.

Si�n James: I thank my hon. Friend for his response. I believe that it is important to invest in science to help the UK economy grow and for us to compete in an ever increasing global economy. I draw his attention to the semi-conductor company, Pure Wafer, in my constituency. It is the only company outside Japan with the technology and capability to recycle 300 mm silicon wafers on a global scale. It has received grant assistance and brought jobs to Swansea, and it was recently awarded the title of Welsh company of the year. Will he ensure that the Government continue to invest in science to provide local jobs and help us to compete on a global scale?

Stephen Timms: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I congratulate the company in her constituency and pay tribute to the support that she gives it and other firms in her area. The 10-year strategy for science that we launched two years ago set out the ambition that public and private investment in research and development should reach 2.5 per cent. of GDP by 2014. Thanks to the new stability that we have achieved in the British economy plus the extra support for science, we can look forward to many more examples, such as that to which my hon. Friend drew the House's attention.

Adam Price: Given the Chief Secretary's comments about the link between science expenditure and economic development, why does Wales, with 5 per cent. of the UK population, receive only 2 per cent. of the science budget, which is about a third of what the Government spent last year on science overseas?

Stephen Timms: The science budget will reach 3.4 billion by the next financial yearmore than twice the 1997 level in cash terms. Of course, many decisions about money that is committed in Wales are now for the Welsh Assembly. However, there are many outstanding examples in Wales of science-based companies thriving, thanks to what the Government have done.

Bioethanol

Bob Blizzard: If he will make a statement on tax on bioethanol.

John Healey: We are strongly committed to supporting the development of biofuels in Britain. The Budget announced an extension of the 20p per litre discount on both biodiesel and bioethanol and that will run until at least 2008-09. The Chancellor also made a range of announcements to bring into force a renewable transport obligation.

Bob Blizzard: Several weeks ago, I had the pleasure of launching one of the country's first bioethanol pumps at a filling station in Lowestoft. This is a symbol of our determination in East Anglia to lead the way on biofuels. We have new biofuel plants coming on stream, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the present rate of progress? Does he think that the process needs more encouragement? What discussions is he having with motor manufacturers to ensure that we have vehicles that can use bioethanol and petrol in the same tankas they have in Brazilready for the new bioethanol revolution?

John Healey: I welcome the introduction of the new bioethanol pump in my hon. Friend's constituency. East Anglia is taking the lead in many ways. One of the first bioethanol plants is likely to be set up in Wissington, close to my hon. Friend's constituency. The industry is being given great support and encouragement by the package of measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget. That will give greater certainty about the development of the market. Clearly, even to reach the level at which 5 per cent. of our road fuels are derived from renewable sourceswhich is the level of the obligationwill involve a huge step up. However, I am confident that we now have in place the sort of package that will lead to that sort of development. The development of engine technology and of the technical specifications for fuel will be part and parcel of our ability to push well beyond 5 per cent. after 2010-11.

Mark Pritchard: In an earlier response to a question about bioethanol, the Chancellor mentioned Mozambique. Does the Minister acknowledge that there are many sugar beet farmers around this country, not least in Shropshire, which has 600, with 200 in my constituency alone? They would be more than willing, able and keen to assist the Government in meeting their climate change targets, if only there were a guaranteed market, and incentives rather than a stick. Will the Minister send out a message today to Shropshire farmersrather than just Mozambique farmersabout how the Government will encourage them to get into the bioethanol market?

John Healey: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the package of proposals put in place by my right hon. Friend in the Budget. Nor am I sure that he has looked at the reaction of the industry to those measures, or at the plans for the new bioethanol plants in this country. The purpose of our policy is to develop the biofuels market in Britain, which will provide new opportunities for British farmers. However, we are not providing a fresh form of subsidy for British production. We are interested in building the biofuels market and gaining the environmental benefits from it. The managing director of Losonoco, one of the firms due to set up two bioethanol plants in the UK, has said that, from the firm's perspective, it was a good Budget and that the support that the Government is giving to the biofuels sector was very encouraging.

David Kidney: We now have in place all the right economic instruments, including the reduction in fuel duty, the capital allowances for new developments and the proposed renewable transport fuel obligation. Does my hon. Friend agree that what we need now are home-grown entrepreneurs to come forward to make the most of home-grown fuels?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right. The Government can go only so far. We have put in place the framework of incentives and support for the development of the market, but, in the end, it requires private investment and private enterprise. The signs are good, but private industry and investment must now do the heavy lifting.

Tax Credits

Laurence Robertson: What estimate he has made of the amount of overpaid tax credits in Gloucestershire during 2005-06.

Dawn Primarolo: The information requested by the hon. Gentleman will not be available until family circumstances and incomes for 2005-06 have been finalised.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for her response. She will be aware that a considerable amount of tax credits have been overpaid through no fault of the claimant and that, when they have to pay the money back, it causes considerable hardship. I recently wrote to her about a case in which the claimant had put her income down on the claim form, but not in the specific box required. She subsequently confirmed that that was her income, but was then overpaid because the Inland Revenue was unable to take account of what she had reported to them. She is now faced with a bill for 3,500, which she cannot pay back. Will the Paymaster General look into that case, and into the whole issue of overpayments that are absolutely no fault of the claimant?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not want me to conduct an MP's surgery here in Treasury Questions[Hon. Members: Go on.] Perhaps I should not have said that. The hon. Gentleman should write to me on that specific case and I will look into ita facility that I offer to all Members. I remind him that during 2003-04, the first year of the scheme's operation, 54,000 families received tax credits. In 2004-05, that figure rose to 60,000, and some of those families, because of their income, benefited to the tune of 2,400 or more. The crucial point is that tax credits in Gloucestershire and everywhere else are contributing to lifting children out of poverty and assisting families and parents to return to work.

UK Productivity

Julie Kirkbride: What recent assessment he has made of the productivity of UK business.

Edward Balls: The Budget report provided an assessment of all areas of the UK economy and UK competitiveness, including gross domestic product, productivity growth, labour market performance and economic stability.

Julie Kirkbride: I think that I thank the Minister for that non-answer. He was a special adviser in the Treasury when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it one of his first priorities, back in 1997, to raise economic productivity. The Minister must know that his Government have singularly failed to do that, and that we have actually dropped down the economic competitiveness league. What is he going to do, through tax and regulation, to make the economy of this country a good deal better than it has been in the past nine years?

Edward Balls: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for being here to ask it. The fact is that since 1997, productivity has grown in every quarter under this Government, unlike under the previous Conservative Government, when it fell. This week's edition of Employment Outlook, produced by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, tells us:
	Britain has scored the highest employment rate and the best combination of unemployment and inactivity rates in the G7 countries for the first time in 50 years.
	We have combined stability, strengthening productivity and record levels of employment. People will remember the difference between that record and the record of previous decades, when we suffered the deepest recession since the second world war and the longest recession since the second world war, when people suffered from negative equity and when we had high interest rates. People do not want to go back to those days.

Brian H Donohoe: One of the areas of concern for manufacturing in my constituency is the cost of energy. In the light of that, and given what has been stated about the next generation of nuclear power, what is the Treasury's view?

Edward Balls: My hon. Friend is right to point out that the high cost of energy in recent months has been an issue for British industry, and more generally for the economy. On Monday, the Governor of the Bank of England talked about the pressures on the economy as a result of the high oil prices around the world. An energy review, which will report in a few months time, will be a Government report and will set out exactly how we can have an energy policy that meets our climate change obligations and also delivers security and diversity of supply. That report will refer to the need for a range of measures and of sources of energy, but we will need to wait for the final details before we can comment on it.

Ann Winterton: Is the Minister aware that business and industry are more heavily taxed now than ever before? In 1997, the tax take was 80 billion; this year, it is 140 billion, due to corporation tax, national insurance tax and other taxation. On top of that, there a huge amount of regulation, some of which is emanating from the European Union. Is it any wonder that companies, including headquarters in the City of London, are thinking of relocating elsewhere?

Edward Balls: As I said in a speech yesterday, the number of listings in the UK has been rising, rather than falling, in recent years. We have cut corporation tax from 33p to 30p. We have cut small business tax. We have also cut capital gains tax from 40p to 10p since 1997. However, the hon. Lady includes in her figures one tax that we did raise: a 5 billion windfall tax on the privatised utilities. The Conservatives opposed it, but it has helped to get down unemploymentparticularly youth unemploymentin constituencies across the country. I would like her to support that tax rise, but I fear that she will not do so.

Climate Change Levy

Albert Owen: What recent discussions he has had on the climate change levy and its impact on carbon emissions.

John Healey: We have discussions with a wide range of groups on a wide range of issues, including the climate change levy. Talking of discussions, next week we will be able to debate and vote on the climate change levy as part of the Finance Bill; indeed, we will discuss it with all parties in this House, and I hope that all will back it at that point. In particular, I hope that, for once, we will see backing from the Conservatives on the environment, instead of opposing the levy. I hope that they will support the measures that we are taking.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. He will know that high energy users, including the aluminium smelter sector, have reduced their CO2 emissions considerably because of incentives provided by the Government, through changes to national insurance and part-exemption from the climate change levy. That has allowed smelters, including Anglesey Aluminium in my constituency, to reduce their carbon emissions by up to 30 per cent. Will he consider that issue further when climate change is under discussion, to ensure that British manufacturing, including smelters, is more productive? Does he agree that that carrot and stick approach is just what British industry needs?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is right in that the package that we introduced with the climate change levy included the important climate change agreements, giving an 80 per cent. discount from the levy for high energy, high intensive sectors, especially those facing international competition. We were able to introduce those discounts for 42 sectors and have since added five more. We are looking to legislate for those five more, building on an extra nine that we added previously. We are trying to strike an essential balance with a package of measures that gets us the environmental gains that we need, but protects the competitiveness of British industry. We have achieved that with the climate change levy package and I hope that we will receive support from both sides of the House for the Finance Bill next week, instead of the Toriesto coin a phrasetalking tough and voting soft.

Tax Credits

Greg Clark: What criteria he used in deciding on his response to the request from the Institute for Fiscal Studies for information on the cost of the 25,000 income disregard for tax credits.

Dawn Primarolo: In responding to the freedom of information request from the Institute for Fiscal Studies and in the subsequent review of the decision, officials at Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs followed the criteria set out in the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Greg Clark: The Paymaster General knows exactly what the likely cost of the increased disregard will be, but in rejecting the freedom of information request she said that officials had to balance the public interest in disclosing the information with the public interest in withholding it. What is the public interest in preventing MPs from knowing the cost of her policy? Is it not a shameful situation for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be afraid of scrutiny of his flagship policy?

Dawn Primarolo: On the first question that the hon. Gentleman posed, the information has been made available to the House. On the specific point of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is a non-ministerial department. It is for officials to follow the criteria set out in the Act, and that is precisely what they did.

David Gauke: The Paymaster General will be aware that the Treasury Committee's report, published recently, criticised the lack of understanding of the cost of the new package, including the disregard, as well as a failure to understand the roles of IT, fraud and official error. The report also stated that the Committee was not convinced that the Paymaster General fully realised
	the extent to which HMRC needs to re-focus its administrative structures for tax credits around the needs of claimants.
	Since that report was published, has the penny finally dropped?

Dawn Primarolo: The Treasury Committee said:
	We commend HMRC for the positive step it has taken towards improving the way it deals with complex cases, by setting up a specialist team for the express purpose.
	The Committee also commended HMRC for the moves it has made to improve its work.
	The report said that
	we welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to improve the operation of the tax credits regime by introducing a package of reforms.
	The Treasury Committee's report commented in detail and commended the department on the administrative changes it is making. The press release by the Committee also acknowledged that tax credits are the right policy.

Pension Reform

Philip Dunne: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the tax implications of pension reform; and if he will make a statement.

Edward Balls: I am pleased, if somewhat surprised, to be able to answer question 21. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on a range of matters, including those relating to pension reform.

Philip Dunne: I am grateful for that very informative response. In evidence to the Treasury Select Committee earlier this week, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was unable to give a clear-cut assurance that increases in the basic state pension would definitely be linked to earnings, not just in 2012 but throughout the life of the next Parliament. It is increasingly unlikely that the Chancellor will be in a position of influence over the next Government, but will the Economic Secretary say whether he has any doubts about the affordability of that key plank of the Government's pension reforms?

Edward Balls: I know that the hon. Gentleman keeps a close eye on pension issues, as a member of the Select Committee and through his website, where he has expressed his concerns about affordability. The Government's position was set out clearly in the White Paper. We want to introduce the earnings link by 2012, and certainly by 2015. Our aim is to reform pensions in an affordable way that is fair to future generations as well as to this one. That is what we will deliver.

Rob Marris: Tax relief on pension contributions currently costs 18 billion a year in foregone tax revenue, and there will be further tax relief under the new pension arrangements proposed by my right hon. Friend Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. However, the evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions is that tax relief has a negligible effect on how much is saved in pension schemes. Why is there tax relief under the new scheme, when the existing relief is not doing what it was designed to do?

Edward Balls: As my hon. Friend knows, people pay tax on their pensions when they receive them, and they receive tax relief as they contribute to their pensions. That has been the system in this country for many years, and it is the right way to ensure that we encourage people to save for retirement. We want more rather than fewer people to use the tax reliefs by saving for their pensions, and that is why the current system will continue after the White Paper has been implemented.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give the business for the coming weeks?

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 19 JuneSecond Reading of Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 20 JuneRemaining stages of the Children and Adoption Bill [ Lords].
	Wednesday 21 JuneOpposition day [17th allotted day]. There will be a debate on the future of the BBC, followed by a debate entitled The Failure of the Government's Housing and Planning Policy. Both debates arise on Opposition motions.
	Thursday 22 JuneA debate on defence policy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 23 JuneThe House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 26 JuneSecond Reading of the Charities Bill [ Lords].
	Tuesday 27 JuneA debate on pensions on a Government motion.
	Wednesday 28 JuneA motion to approve the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Code of Practice C and Code of Practice H) Order 2006, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Lottery Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Childcare Bill.
	Thursday 29 JuneRemaining stages of the Commons Bill [ Lords].
	Friday 30 JuneThe House will not be sitting.
	I should also let the House know that the business in Westminster Hall for Thursday 22 June will now be a debate on human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business over the next two weeks. A few weeks ago, the Health Secretary said that it had been the best year ever for the health service, but the chief executive of the NHS Confederation said yesterday that the NHS was facing its toughest year ever. She said that trusts were facing
	a string of directives, one on top of the other, often contradictory,
	in a system that was
	long on plans and short on strategy,
	and which focused on
	what we report rather than what we deliver.
	The Leader of the House regularly tells us about what the Government have done in respect of the NHS. Can we have statement from the Health Secretary on the future of the NHS, and on how she will cut the directives and targets and let staff get on with their jobs?
	The organisation Fathers Direct recently produced advice for fathers with the help of a grant from the Government. One thing that the Government can do to help fathers is to support co-parenting on separation, so will the Leader of the House urge the Education Secretary to support co-parenting in next Tuesday's debate on the Children and Adoption Bill?
	Apparently, the Prime Minister's proposed fundamental review of Government spending has hit the buffersI guess that they are otherwise known as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last month, the Prime Minister described the review as a vital foundation for spending plans. When will the Chancellor allow the review to be published, and will it be debated in this House?
	On financial matters, in Treasury questions Members raised yesterday's evidence from the permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Skills, in which he said that the Chancellor's Budget objective to increase education spending to the current level for private schools was simply an aspiration and that no work was being done on it in the Department. May we have a statement both from the Chancellor, giving further clarification of what he meant when he set that Budget objective, and from the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, explaining why his Department is not doing what is necessary to put in place the Chancellor's aspiration?
	The Home Office's failure to start the procurement process on time has reportedly delayed the identity card schemeanother project so important to Ministers. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the future timetable for that project? Indeed, given the Government's record, may we have a debate on their handling of IT projects? For example, the Child Support Agency implemented a 465 million new computer system 18 months late and tens of thousands of cases are still stuck in the system. The new IT system for the passport agency was delayed and over budget, and led to more than 500,000 people waiting for passports. The Criminal Records Bureau's new computer system was delivered six months late and 145 million over budget, built up a backlog of 30,000 cases, and has led to people being refused jobs because the wrong data were used, which, of course, brings me back to Home Office incompetencea recurring theme in business questions recently.
	This week, we have seen yet another example of the Home Secretary trying to blame everyone but the Government for the problems in our criminal justice system; if he is not blaming the civil servants, he is blaming the judges. Does the Leader of the House agree that what the public want is honest sentencing? They want to know that when someone is told that they will be in prison for 18 years, they will be in prison for 18 years and will not be let out halfway through or, worse still, when they have served only a third of their sentence. May we have a debate on sentencing policy? Then we can discuss why the Government's action on sentencing means that a man who kidnapped and sexually assaulted a three-year-old girl can be let out of prison after less than six years.
	Let us look at the numbers: nine years in government, three large majorities and 54 criminal justice Bills, but only one person to blamethe Prime Minister.

Jack Straw: First, the right hon. Lady referred to comments about the NHS and said what is needed is to concentrate on what is delivered rather than what is reported. I am delighted to concentrate on what is delivered, because the facts of the improvements in the national health service speak for themselves, in terms of huge increases in the number of staffan increase of 85,000 nurses, 30,000 doctors and 10,000 consultants. There have been improvements in staff levels in every constituency and they are paralleled by improvements in health care for every constituent across the country.
	Secondly, the right hon. Lady referred to co-parenting and the proposals before the House next week. I shall certainly pass on her comments to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Thirdly, she asked about the report in today's  Financial Times about the comprehensive spending review

Theresa May: The fundamental spending review.

Jack Straw: I am talking about the same thing; there will be a report, as proposed.
	Fourthly, the right hon. Lady asked for a debate because she wants to find out about education spending nowby comparison, I assume, with 1997 and the Conservative years. We do not need a debate on the improvements in education spending. All that the right hon. Lady needs to do is to look at the website or to ask in the Library for the figures, which show a dramatic improvement in spending on the service, moving education spending year by yearyesup towards the level in private schools. That dramatic improvement in spending, along with a significant increase of 33,000 in the number of teachers and an increase of more than 250,000 in the number of teachers' assistants, is leading to dramatic improvements in the educational attainment of pupils in every constituency. I am surprised that the right hon. Lady is not celebrating the achievement of schools and hospitals in her constituency, instead of denigrating the record of good public servants and the effectiveness of public investment.
	The right hon. Lady asked about Home Office matters and said that we need debates on sentencing. We have had plenty of debates on sentencing. They have occurred in the context of many of the Bills that she is now complaining about in respect of law and order. As the Prime Minister so effectively pointed out yesterday, it is striking that, more often than not, when we bring forward proposals to strengthen sentencing and to toughen up the judicial system, Conservative Members vote against them.  [ Interruption. ] Someone who has probably not checked the facts of even his own voting record said, Not so, from a sedentary position. The Conservatives voted against abolishing the double jeopardy rule to allow suspected rapists and murderers to be retried when important new evidencefor example, DNA evidencecame to light. They thought that that was a bad idea and that guilty rapists and murderers should go free. They voted against powers for the prosecution to ask for trial without jury where there was a danger of jury tampering. They voted against extending police powers to detain without chargefrom 24 to 36 hours. They voted against giving the prosecution a right of appeal against terminating rulings by judges before a case is complete. They even voted against restricting the range of evidence of an offender's bad character that could be admitted in court.

Theresa May: Sentencing!

Jack Straw: I hear the word sentencing being parroted. The difference is that as a result of those changes, which we had to force through against Conservative opposition, many more guilty criminals are being convicted and sentenced. There was no opportunity before for the courts to convict them because of the inadequacy of the criminal justice system that the Conservatives left. I recallit is worth us all recallingthat when the Conservatives last had charge of the criminal justice system, police numbers were cut and crime doubled. Under this Government, police numbers have risen by 15,000, and according to the British crime survey, crime has gone down on every measure. That is also the case with recorded crime.

David Heath: A cursory examination of the business for the next two weeks suggests that the Government are coming to the end of the post-election legislative programme, barring a late flurry of criminal justice Bills. That being the case, may I ask the Leader of the House not to bring forward the date of the Queen's Speech and not to extend the already over-long summer recess, but to forswear for the rest of this Session the use of guillotine motions on Report stages of Bills, so that we can adequately scrutinise the legislation that is before us and perhaps make sure that some of it stands the test of time?
	May I ask again for a debate on nuclear power? Every time the Prime Minister opens his mouth on the subject, it creates the need for a further debate. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said:
	the new generation of nuclear power stations generate around one tenth of the waste of the previous generation.[ Official Report, 14 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 765.]
	However, we know, from the work of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, that
	the amount of high level waste would actually increase by 400 per cent.
	It really will not do to have nonsensical statistics bandied before the House, rather than have a genuine debate on a key issue for the future of the country. May we have that debate?
	May we have a debate on sport? I say that not because of events in Germany at the moment, or Wimbledon, or test matches, but on the basis of the Audit Commission report on sporting and recreation facilities in our local areas, which says:
	In England 65 per cent of council facilities are over 20 years old
	and are deteriorating badly. If we do not invest in proper sports facilities throughout the countrynot just the Olympic facilities, but ordinary sports facilities for ordinary people to usewe will be doing our country a great deal of ill.
	I note that on 29 June we will debate the Commons Bill [ Lords]. Can the Leader of the House give us any indication of when we will discuss a Lords Bill [ Commons]?

Jack Straw: rose

Owen Paterson: Ask him where the Liberals are!

Jack Straw: All over the place. The Liberals are so deeply committed to the House of Commons and democracy that they have a solitary representative in the Chamber.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asks about foreswearing the use of guillotine motions. I am not trying to make a casuistical point[Hon. Members: Go on!] Well, I might. We do not have guillotine motions these days; instead we have programme motions, which were recommended by the Modernisation Committee.

Douglas Hogg: That is a Foreign Office point.

Jack Straw: No, it is not a Foreign Office point. The Foreign Office produced remarkably little legislation.
	There is a need for as much time as possible for Report stages, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will appreciate that there is a limit on the amount of time available to the House. However, I am concerned that quite a lot of time that is available to Opposition Members is simply not being used, and I will make that available. There has been an early collapse of sittings [ Interruption. ] The Government put their business before the House. I was in opposition for 18 years, so I know that it is for Opposition parties to make use of their opportunities.
	There will be a White Paper on nuclear power. However, meanwhile, if the Liberal Democrats are absolutely desperate for a debate on nuclear power, which would expose divisions in their ranks because some Liberal Democrat Members are in favour of windmills, some favour increasing carbon emissions and others who represent areas with nuclear power stations are in favour of nuclear power, I suggest that they use the Supply day that they have coming up.
	Sport and recreation facilities are of course a concern. We have increased the investment for such facilities hugely. I could bore the House by talking about the investment in my constituency and, perhaps, in the hon. Gentleman's, too.
	As for the Commons and the Lords, as everyone knows, a Joint Committee is reviewing the conventions of the Lords. In due coursearound the end of the year, I hopethere will be proposals on their future composition.

Brian Iddon: The Road Safety Bill, which was lost in the last Parliament, has completed all its stages in the House of Lords. It is two months since its Committee stage in the House was completed. The Bill includes many life-saving measures, but I fear that its Report and Third Reading may be delayed until after the summer. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Bill completes its passage before the summer recess?

Jack Straw: I certainly note my hon. Friend's concern. I will look into the matter and write to him.

Graham Stuart: Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on the plight of Zimbabwean refugees? There are many engineers, doctors, teachers, nurses and other people in this country whose skills could be put to good use for our country's benefit, which would maintain those skills for the future. There are also peopleincluding my constituent, Ashleigh McMaster, who, outrageously, has had her application for asylum turned downwho are in limbo because they are unable to study, work or contribute. Owing to the languishing state of their skills, a group of Zimbabwean people will be unable to contribute to that benighted country when Mugabe goes.

Jack Straw: I understand entirely the concern of Zimbabwean refugees, although I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking not about refugees, but about the different group of unsuccessful asylum seekers, some of whom I have in my constituency. His question illustrates precisely why the asylum system is complex. There are people around the country making similar representations about every single unfounded asylum application. The hon. Gentleman believes that decisions about Zimbabwe are outrageous, but others believe that decisions about other countries, even safe countries, are outrageous, and, like the hon. Gentleman, continue to make representation upon representation. I understand that, but it does not lie in the hon. Gentleman's mouth or in the mouths of Front Benchers to complain about the complexity of the system, given that the complexity exists because of the force of the representations.
	We have sought to streamline the system, notwithstanding the representations. We wanted to introduce a single appeal to replace the layers of appeals that existed 15 and even 10 years ago, and to secure a higher quality of judicial decision-making. The decisions made about hon. Gentleman's constituent were made not by Ministers but by independent judges, and can be reviewed by the Court of Appeal.

Andrew MacKinlay: As an M25 Member of Parliament, may I askas Surrey and Kent Members have notfor a statement about the safety aspects of the M25 when there is a major crash and people are incarcerated for eight hours? If there were a similar hiatus in aviation or on the railway, a statement would be made; but for some reason we stoically accept dangerous detentions on our motorways. One happened recently. It is extraordinarily dangerous. The House needs to be told what evacuation procedures exist, and what directions and duties are given to the police to prevent more people from adding to the hiatus on the motorway. It is time we heard a major statement about how we can minimise the trauma of people who are stuck on the M25 for eight hours in intolerable, dangerous conditions.

Jack Straw: I know a little about the incident to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I know of the concern about people who were stuck for eight hours. My hon. Friend will be aware that the police used an emergency helicopter to distribute bottled water to stranded motorists. That was important, because it was a boiling hot day.
	I will convey my hon. Friend's concern to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I hope that he will follow it up.

Douglas Hogg: Before we have any legislation on sentencing by criminal courts, may we have a full debate in the House? Many of us want an opportunity to say that the House should not be too prescriptive about the sentences imposed by judges, that judges should have as much discretion as they can properly be given, and that defendants should serve the great majority of the sentences imposed, but also that the potential life sentences imposed under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 can do serious injustice to defendants.

Jack Straw: I am aware that that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view. He has been consistent in that view since the proposals of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in 1996, when he opposed his own Front Bench.
	I have thought about the matter a great deal, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor are doing so as well. We must achieve a balance between the understandable desire of the public, and indeed the House, for a clear sentencing framework that is more predictable than it was 30 or 40 years ago and ensuring that there is proper judicial discretion. That is relatively easy to say, but more difficult to achieve. We all accept that the issue must be dealt with in a serious and measured way.

Ann Coffey: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the students at Avondale school who, as part of their star project, have produced interesting and innovative ideas for encouraging people to save energy? Will he make time for a debate on the citizenship curriculum, which encourages young people throughout the country to take part in important projects of that kind?

Jack Straw: I do indeed congratulate the pupils and staff of Avondale school. My hon. Friend has talked to me about that project outside the House. The citizenship project is profoundly important: when we meet children in our constituencies or here, we note that although they are genuinely interested in this place and how it works, they lack adequate information and understanding of citizenship and politics. We need to put that right.

David Evennett: In view of the Government's decision today to approve a huge waste-to-energy incinerator in my borough of Bexley, will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate in Government time on the whole issue of waste disposal and incineration? My constituents are naturally very unhappy about the decision and its consequences for the local environment.

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. We have sought to produce much better and greener methods of disposing of waste, including the landfill tax, and they are working. That said, there must be some arrangements for incineration of quite large amounts of waste. No one wants such facilities next door, but they have to go somewhere.

Helen Southworth: At a time when we are focusing so closely on performance in English football, could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate allowing us to consider the circumstances of young players such as my constituent Hannah Dale? Hannah is a star football player, who has won the player of the year award for her club on many occasions. She is an academy player and lives for football, but she turned 11 this month and can no longer play with her team because FA rules do not allow girls to play mixed football after they reach that age. Hannah wants to be a footballer, and we need to ensure that girls like her can become footballers.

Jack Straw: I wish Hannah every success. My hon. Friend will know of the great success of the Blackburn Rovers women's football team: I pay particular attention to women's football for that reason.
	The Government are responsible for many things and are probably to blame for even more, but happily we are not responsible for the rules of football.

John Bercow: Yet.

Jack Straw: Everand that includes the performance of the England team.  [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) says from a sedentary positionand I want this to be recordedthat we all wish the England team well. Some people have the mistaken impression that an England-Scotland game is taking place this afternoon, but we will pass over that lightly.
	I will convey the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Helen Southworth) to the chairman of the Football Association.

Alex Salmond: May we have a full oral statement from the Chancellor on his proposals for a 2 coin to celebrate the Act of Union? Is it true that the coin is to be called a Brownie, because it is full of brass, not very popular and soon to be devalued? Is the Leader of the House aware that it will become a collector's item as the Union passes into history, and is it true that 6,000 million of the coins would have to be circulated in Scotland next year to be the equivalent of the 12 billion of Scottish oil revenues that are the only thing keeping the Chancellor's head above the financial waters?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman could have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that

Dennis Skinner: He wasn't here then.

Jack Straw: He was not here, so he missed the opportunity.
	I do not make that many predictions, but I am certain that the hon. Gentleman will pass into history a long time before the Union.

Tony Lloyd: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to two recent shootings in Greater Manchester? A 15-year-old boy in my constituency was shot, but fortunately not killed, and a 15-year-old girl was murdered by her jilted boyfriend. Guns were used in both cases. Alas, many members of the public have become resigned to the fact that guns now circulate in our cities and, increasingly, throughout the country. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary, telling us the Government's strategy for driving the guns out of our sight and making it clear that we do not accept that guns, like drugs earlier, can systematically become part of our national way of life?

Jack Straw: The whole House will share my hon. Friend's profound concern about the availability of illegal handguns on the streets of some of our cities and towns, and send condolences to the family of the schoolgirl who was killed and sympathy to the young person who was injured.
	Over the past 10 years, we have taken considerable steps to strengthen the law on handguns. We banned them altogether in 1997, sentences have been increased, and the police are making greater use of tougher enforcement. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, along with the Association of Chief Police Officers and Greater Manchester police, is ever ready to consider further measures to strengthen enforcement against the use and availability of guns on our streets.

Andrew Turner: Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement on her very popular patient choice agenda in which she explains why the Isle of Wight strategic health authority, against the wishes of the primary care trust, purchased 200,000 cataract operations at an independent treatment centre in Portsmouth, only four of which have been taken up by my constituents, who do not want to have to travel to Portsmouth for their eye operations, yet who still have to pay for them? Is it the Government's intention to put money into the private sector, which should be treating health service patients?

Jack Straw: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he regards as popular one of the many proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health; I am sure that she will be pleased to hear that, too. Those policies are indeed popular. Despite the difficulties that he outlines in one respect, the facts are that in his constituency the number of nurses has increased by 27 per cent., there are 1,135 extra doctors, which is an increase of 38 per cent., and almost 400 more consultants, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent.. Those and similar increases have led to real improvements in health care in his constituency and everywhere else. I hope that the next time he stands up, it is to congratulate the doctors and nurses who are delivering improvements in health care in his constituency.

David Taylor: Communities such as Ravenstone, Packington, Normanton-Le-Heath and Heather welcomed the election of a Labour Government in 1997 for many reasons, not least the promise of a tighter line against greenfield open-casting, the experience and future prospects of which have blighted the lives of those Leicestershire villages for decades. The same is true of other coalfield community areas in the midlands and elsewhere. Does the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government plan to make a statement on minerals planning guidance note 3 and whether the concept of the cumulative impact of open-casting has been abandoned in determining applications; and on the reasons for the inquiry inspector's astonishing recommendations in relation to the Long Moor site in north-west Leicestershire, sanctioning a four-year application to extract 750,000 tonnes and potentially condemning the area for decades beyond? There are also risks in relation to Lodge House in Amber Valley. The issue is extremely serious, and not only in the valley in north-west Leicestershire.

Jack Straw: I know that that is a problem in Amber Valley as well, because our hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) was just telling me that she endorsed what my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) says. I understand his concerns and I shall be in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, especially on the question of the cumulative effect of open-cast mining in his area.

John Greenway: May we have a statement from a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the movement restrictions imposed on 33 fish farms in north Yorkshire as a result of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia being found in fish on only one farm some weeks ago? The matter is serious: many of the fish farmers now face ruin and fish cannot be moved to lakes and other watercourses that angling clubs and estates need for the rest of the fishing season. Compensation and aid for the farmers is desperately needed. it would be paid in any other EU member state and it would certainly be paid to the agriculture industry.

Jack Straw: I shall let the Secretary of State know today about the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I also draw his attention to the fact that oral questions to the Department are next Thursday and he can table a question on Monday.

Jim Devine: This week, I received my draft entry in Who's Who for 2007. It contained my London address, which at a time of trouble is a bit worrying, given that in the '70s a terrorist organisation used Who's Who to get the address of an individual whom it subsequently murdered. Will the Leader of the House consider writing to the publishers of Who's Who to ensure that nobody's address appears?

Jack Straw: Happily, I am not responsible for Who's Who entriesyet. If I were, I would tell the truth about Conservative Members. However, I am certain that the publishers will allow a House of Commons or other accommodation address in place of a private address.

Mark Pritchard: May we have an urgent debate on access to telephone services in rural villages, particularly those in Shropshire? Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wrong that BT is failing in its universal access obligations and that villagers in Kynnersley in my constituency are suffering from poor telephone services and little access to internet and broadband services, despite BT's high rhetoric?

Jack Straw: I will pass on the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In addition, if he has not already done so, I invite him to write to the chairman of Ofcom.

Paul Flynn: When can we discuss early-day motion 2350? It states:
	 [That this House records its sorrow at the first death of a British soldier in the Helmand Province and salutes the courage and professionalism of British troops; and fears that the mission is an impossible one that will strengthen the Taliban, lead to more British deaths, the Columbia-isation of Central Asia and possibly deteriorate into a British Vietnam.]
	Last week, there were complaints of a shortage of morphine in British hospitals and there is a chronic shortage of morphine throughout the developing world, yet our troops are engaged in what has been described as a mission impossible to destroy the raw material for the manufacture of morphine. Would it not be more sensible of us to license Afghani farmers to use their poppy crops for the production of morphine, rather than to try to destroy the livelihoods of 2 million people and drive them into the hands of the Taliban?

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend has consistently opposed criminal sanctions in relation to all drugs. I understand his point of view, but I do not agree with it. Increased production of morphine for lawful use is needed, but I do not think that that is an argument for generally legalising the growing of poppies.  [ Interruption. ] He should bear in mind that, overwhelmingly, poppy production in Afghanistan is not used for morphine production, because it can be sold for a much higher profit on the streets in the form of illicit drugs.

Andrew MacKay: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware that one of his principal responsibilities is to ensure the clarity of Government policy. There is considerable confusion following last night's television programmes, in which the Lord Chancellor on Question Time appeared to condemn the Home Secretary and other politicians for interfering with the judiciary but, simultaneously, the chairman of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), was on Newsnight saying the opposite. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Home Office questions on Monday is sufficient to ensure clarity, or should someone come to the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Lord Chancellor next week?

Jack Straw: The right hon. Gentleman may raise the matter in Home Office questions, and I suspect that he will do so. In fact, there is consistency between what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said on Monday and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said more recently this week. Let us be clear: on Monday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary expressed a reservation about a specific sentencehe is entitled to do that; he was not criticising the judiciary, merely expressing a reservationand this morning my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor gave what I thought was an eloquent exposition of the overall position on sentencing.

Andrew Love: My right hon. Friend will know that there is to be a debate on House of Lords reform in Westminster Hall next week. Apart from the fact that I cannot be present, I regard that as wholly inadequate for debating one of the most important issues on which the House must decide. If my right hon. Friend is true to his word and wants to take the temperature of the House in that respect, and if we are to achieve the so-called developing consensus on the future of the House of Lords, it is critical that we have a debate in this Chamber. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that we will not wait until the Committee reports at the end of the year, but that we will have a debate in the main Chamber before the summer recess?

Jack Straw: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate before the summer recess. There will be a debate on Tuesday next week in Westminster Hall. I will not be able to be present, but my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will be deputising for me. There was a debate which lasted for three hours on 10 May, which was in Government time. A good debate it was, too. It was on the motion to establish the Joint Committee on Conventions. I promise my hon. Friend that, during the calendar year, there will be other opportunities to debate what I accept is an important issue and a heavy responsibility on my shoulders.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on adult education? The Government's decision to cut adult education funding and divert the moneys to other areas of further education has led to a cut in the overall budget to Shipley college last year. It has led also to many people having to pay extra fees, many of whom cannot afford them. Bradford college has decided to shut Burley Grange in my constituency, which provided adult education for people in Wharfedale. I am sure that the Leader of the House understands how important adult education is to many people throughout the country. I hope that he will find time for a debate on the subject. There are issues that are causing much anguish in my constituency.

Jack Straw: I do understand the importance of further education. I am proud to say that I have been, and remain, the governor of the further education college in Blackburn for the past 15 years. I take a real and close interest in the matter. There have been some changes in funding, not for all adult educationlet us be clear about thatbut of non-vocational adult education. I know the importance of that to those who are concerned. Overall, there has been investment in education at other levelsprimary, secondary and higher educationas well as in further education. That is leading over time to significant improvements in skills levels and, for example, in eradicating adult illiteracy, about which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills spoke yesterday.

Mark Lazarowicz: Mention was made a few minutes ago of handguns. My right hon. Friend will be aware also of the problem that is caused by the misuse of airguns, which affects so many of our constituents. My constituents were pleased with the Government's proposals in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill to tighten up the law on airguns. Unfortunately, that Bill seems to have been delayed in the House of Lords for more than six months now. Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to encourage the quick completion of consideration of that Bill in the other place? When it comes back to this place, will he ensure that it has an early passage, so that my constituents and those of right hon. and hon. Members throughout the House can get the benefits of the protections that are set out in the Bill?

Jack Straw: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised the matter. I will follow it up.

John Bercow: May we please have a debate on special educational needs? I declare an interest as the father of a two and a half year old boy who will almost certainly have such needs. Given that there are about 1.5 million children who are SEN, does the Leader of the House accept that it is most unsatisfactory that the three debates on this subject that have taken place in this Parliament have respectively had to be initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries) and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones). Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government need to commit to finding Government time to address the concerns and needs of some vulnerable children with severe, complex and multi-faceted disorders? These children need our help and they need it now.

Jack Straw: I agree with the substance of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, I do not agree with his conclusion. He seems to be implying that the only good debates in the House are those held in Government time. The purpose of ensuring that there is Opposition time and Back-Bench time is to enable issues of importancematters that are also of interest to the Governmentto be taken up by Back-Bench Members. Neither Back-Benchers nor the Opposition have to wait for the Government to find time; they can find it themselves. It is a credit to the House that there have already been three debates on the matter. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's request in mind. He should not undervalueI do not think that he was intending to do sothe importance of debates other than those that take place in Government time.

Sharon Hodgson: In order to continue the Government's unique and innovative policy of giving things for freefor example, free bus travel for pensioners, free eye tests for pensioners, free television licences for those over 75 and free museum entry for allmay we have a debate on the merit of introducing free and healthy school meals for all primary school children, as is currently being piloted in Hull? It is proving hugely beneficial to the attendance and performance of such children.

Jack Straw: I am sure that we can have a debate on the matter. I advise my hon. Friend to try to secure an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on this important issue.

Mark Lancaster: Can we have a debate on land-banking? It is an increasingly common practice now, especially in the south-east of England, where overseas companies are buying up large tracts of agricultural land, only then to split them up in plots and advertise them as speculative residential plots. In my constituency, Sinclair Deville has recently bought a four or five acre site and advertised it at the Ideal Home exhibition. It is not within the local plan, but it causes considerable unrest in local communities when these plots are advertised. Also, the practice potentially misleads investors.

Jack Straw: I cannot promise a debate on the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is successful in an Adjournment ballot. I understand the concerns. It seems to be an issue of consumer protection as much as anything else.

Peter Bone: On 3 May, I asked a series of named day questions to the Home Secretary about my local prison. As of today, I have received no replies. If the answers are being delayed to save the Government embarrassment, that would be a gross abuse of power by the Executive. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Home Secretary to make an urgent statement on parliamentary questions absconding from the Home Office?

Jack Straw: I talked to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this issue this morning. He is very concerned about the delay in answering questions. The delay is not for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman implies. As I said in answer to a point of order yesterday, part of the problem is that since about April the number of written questions for answer by the Home Office has doubled. With the best will in the world, as I explained yesterday

Peter Bone: They are named day questions.

Jack Straw: Whether they are named day questions or otherwise, the numbers have doubled. There is understandable concern in the House and outside it about the performance of the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary understands that. With the best will in the world, additional pressure has been put on those who are responsible for drafting the answers. The hon. Gentleman would be pretty merciless if the answers were drafted and they turned out to be inaccurate. There is a balance between timeliness and accuracy.

Julian Lewis: Does the Leader of the House recall from his days of being Foreign Secretary the favourable reception that was given to the Government's strategic defence review for recognising the need for a shift to an expeditionary strategy based on aircraft carriers to deal with terrorist threats as far away from home as possible? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement soon on who is in charge of future defence policy, given the report this week that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is insisting on 1 billion being shifted from the defence budget to the homelands security budget, which will almost certainly result in at least one of the aircraft carriers not being built?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Tobias Ellwood.

Jack Straw: Would you like me to answer the question, Madam Deputy Speaker? We could adopt this practice all the way through for Opposition questions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to remain neutral, so I will not do it all the way through.

Jack Straw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is, of course, responsible for defence policy, through the Cabinet and to the House. It is true at all times that there is pressure on defence spending. I will not embarrass the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) by reminding him of the cuts that were made in defence spending towards the end of the Major Administration. If there is any change in our current position in respect of aircraft carriers, it will be announced to the House. I am not anticipating that there should be.

Tobias Ellwood: I returned this morning from Afghanistan, having visited Kabul, Kandahar and the provincial reconstruction team in Lashkargah. I had meetings with President Karzai. I also travelled with General Jones, the head of NATO, and met General Richards of the international security assistance force. I put the question of poppy licensing to them. They all agreed that it is something that we need to pursue, even if it is only a pilot scheme.
	I am asking for a debate on Afghanistan so that we can discuss these issues and, I am sad to report, the lack of co-ordination between international organisations, whether they be the EU, the United Nations, the Department for International Development and the embassies that are pouring in a great deal of money and good will. There is no overall co-ordination, as we have seen in Bosnia.

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman will know, when he was in AfghanistanI am grateful that he made that journeymy right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and for International Development were there, and they gave a report in Cabinet this morning. Work by the British Government is knitted together, but co-ordination by other foreign organisation remains a challenge, not least to the UN, as those forces are at present under UN mandate. On the licensing of heroin production, I will pass the hon. Gentleman's concerns on to my right hon. Friends, but I cannot promise the outcome that he seeks.

Owen Paterson: I am afraid to report that a public menace is abroad. When he was responsible for the environment, for transport and local government, he made a mess of them, and he is now damaging parliamentary questions. To make room for the Deputy Prime Minister, Transport and Work and Pensions questions have been cut to only 40 minutes. Transport and pensions affect every single citizen, so is it right to cut them to 40 minutes to give us what is admittedly an enjoyable half hour harpooning a figure of public ridicule?

Jack Straw: I am afraid that I will treat that question with the contempt that it deserves. The hon. Gentleman would complain far more loudly if there was not an opportunity to question the Deputy Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

John Penrose: The Leader of the House will be aware that thousands of pensioners have sent copies of their council tax bills to the former Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its successors in the past few months. Hundreds of those pensioners live in my constituency, and they kindly sent me copies, too. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the effect of council tax rises on pensioners, many of whom are on fixed incomes and are suffering very badly, which is a cause for great concern, particularly in my constituency of Weston-super-Mare

Jack Straw: Questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will take place shortly. It is easy to collect council tax bills and pass them on, and it is fine for the hon. Gentleman to do so as a constituency Member of Parliament. However, I hope that he has done two things. First, I hope that he has told his constituents about all the benefits received by pensioners in the past 10 years, which are very significant indeed. Secondly, I hope that he has explained to his constituents what he and his party would introduce in place of council tax. His party has rightly ruled out a completely mad Liberal Democrat proposal for local income tax, but council tax was a Conservative policy, not a Labour one, so if it does not like it now, let us hear what it would do.

Brooks Newmark: My local newspaper, the  Braintree and Witham Times, has fought a tremendous campaign to build a local community hospital in Braintree. My constituents were promised a community hospital that should have been built by the end of last year, but not a brick has been laid. Developers have moved on to the old site, which has only increased their concern. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and make a statement to reassure them a community hospital will indeed be built in Braintree?

Jack Straw: I do not think that we need a debate. As an Essex boy, I know the hon. Gentleman's Braintree constituency and I know, too, how much the area's health services have improved in the past nine years. Indeed, I have gone there to see and hear about the changes that have taken place. He complained about the delay, but I hope that he will celebrate the fact that there are over 2,000 extra nurses in the health authority covering his area, over 700 doctors and over 200 consultants.

Shailesh Vara: I am a member of the Standing Committee considering the Company Law Reform Bill, which is the largest Bill ever to proceed through the House. Given that the Government lost a vote in that Committee this morning, can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explain why the Government talk tough but vote soft?

Jack Straw: I doubt whether that is the largest Bill ever. The Local Government, Planning and Land Bill introduced by Mr. Michael Heseltine was, as the Conservative Whip, the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), will recall, a massive Bill. It was so awful, however, that it had to be withdrawn. If the hon. Gentleman can guarantee that there will never be the odd procedural glitch in the unlikely event that a Conservative Government are elected, I am happy to listen to him. The Committee will meet next Tuesday, so we will not lose a great deal.

Points of Order

Greg Clark: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Treasury questions this morning, I asked about the likely cost of the increase in the tax credit disregard. The Paymaster General said that that the information has been made available to the House. I have checked with the Library and the Public Accounts Committee, but they are not aware that that information has been passed on to them. I therefore seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how we can correct that and how, if the right hon. Lady has inadvertently misinformed the House, that can be put right as soon as possible.

Mark Francois: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The tenfold increase in the disregard is the key element of the package to put right the tax credit problems announced in the pre-Budget report last December. There has been a great deal of controversy about the cost, which the Government have consistently refused to give to the House and to the public. If it has now been made available, it is a serious matter, because it could be well over 1 billion. The Paymaster General appears to have said that it is available, but we cannot ascertain that that is definitely the case. Will you arrange for her to come to the House today, Madam Deputy Speaker, and make a statement to clear the matter up once and for all?

David Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked a question before the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and the Paymaster General said that the information I sought which, essentially, is the same as that sought by the hon. Gentleman, was in the Budget book or the Budget document Hansard will reveal which one. I am not saying that it is, but that is what she said.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand hon. Members' concerns, but it is not appropriate to extend Question Time under the guise of points of order. The hon. Members concerned may wish to table further questions to follow up the Paymaster General's answer.

Philip Hollobone: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am concerned about the timeliness of responses to written parliamentary questions, as I tabled a question to the Department for Work and Pensions on 1 December 2005, and received the answer this morning. While I am grateful for the response, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that length of time appropriate for responses to inquiries from Back Benchers?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand that the Leader of the House, who is in the Chamber, commented on that point.

Orders of the Day

Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill  [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Peter Hain: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill enables the National Assembly to set up an independent champion for older people. The position will be the first of its kind in the UK and, indeed, possibly in the world. It is modelled on the highly successful post of children's commissioneranother first for Wales. The post was a key commitment in Labour's 2003 manifesto for the last Assembly elections, and the Bill delivers that commitment.
	The Bill is the latest milestone in our commitment to older people in Wales. It will provide a platform for further progress, building on what we have already achieved. When we took office in 1997, one in four pensioners were living in poverty, and pensioner inequality was wider than it had been for 30 years. That is why, for the past nine years, our No.1 priority for older people has been to tackle the scourge of pensioner poverty.

Albert Owen: I very much welcome the Bill and the partnership between the National Assembly for Wales and this Parliament. Does my right hon. Friend envisage that the commissioner's role should include raising awareness, as many pensioners do not apply for means-tested benefits? I accept that we are moving away from means testing, but I am concerned that when we apply the earnings link many of those poorer pensioners will be left behind. Does he believe that the commissioner should assist pensioners in those circumstances?

Peter Hain: Indeed I do, and my hon. Friend makes a very important point, which is as applicable in his Ynys Mn constituency as it is in mine. A proportion of pensioners have not taken advantage of pension credit, which has lifted literally millions of pensioners across the UK and tens of thousands in Wales out of poverty. Yes, the commissioner for older people could have an important role in championing the opportunities that are available, perhaps putting greater pressure on the bureaucracy to deliver more.
	We have also made huge strides in reversing the terrible legacy of pensioner poverty that we inherited from the Tory Government, lifting nearly 2 million pensioners out of absolute poverty and 1 million out of relative poverty. As a result of the measures that we have introduced, the average pensioner household is 1,400 a year better off than it would have been under the Conservative Government, and the poorest pensioners are 1,900 a year better off.
	We are now spending on pensioners 10.5 billion more in real terms than when we took office. We are spending on the minimum income guarantee, the pension credit, the 200 winter fuel payment and increases in the basic state pension. Those are just a few of the measures that have boosted the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of older people right across Wales, with a massive 160,000 pensioner households receiving the pension credit and more than 460,000 households benefiting from the winter fuel payment.

Philip Hollobone: Those figures do not take account of the huge increases in council tax that many vulnerable older people have had to pay since this Administration came to power.

Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, there is generous council tax benefit for the lowest income pensioners, which helps them to avoid the large council tax bills that they would otherwise face. The council tax was introduced, especially in Wales, after local government reorganisation by the hon. Gentleman's party. In my constituency, a discriminatory settlement was imposed on the borough of Neath Port Talbot in comparison with Swansea when the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) set up local government and imposed the council tax structure on Wales.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State fails to mention the 200 given to pensioners to mitigate council tax increases before the general election, which was withdrawn the following year.

Peter Hain: When that was introduced, the Chancellor made it clear that it was intended to deal with the particular problem of high council tax bills at that time. It was welcomed and I think that the hon. Gentleman's own party welcomed it. We have since kept council tax rises very low, especially in Labour-controlled areas and under Labour councils, in comparison with Conservative and, even more, with Liberal Democrat councils, so I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter.

David Taylor: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, not least because three years ago almost to the day I introduced a private Member's Bill to set up an older people's rights commissioner, which embraced similar issues. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that, in promoting and safeguarding the rights and dignity of older people and tackling poverty in Wales, some aspects of the Bill will allow investigations and enforcement to take place over the English border? Will it not create anomalies unless and until we have an older persons' rights commissioner covering England as well?

Peter Hain: I intend to deal with that matter later in my speech, but I can point out to my hon. Friend that the focus of the UK Government is on a Cabinet Sub-Committee on ageing policy, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. That is driving forward a UK-wide strategy, obviously including England and my hon. Friend's own constituency. Devolution allows for, as it were, a policy laboratory to take place right across the UK and to great effect. The Children's Commissioner for Wales was, because of its very success, subsequently copied in England. Likewise, policy on driving down waiting times was more successful in England than in Wales until similar policies were adopted in Wales. I believe that devolution has brought great benefits in that respect.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State forgets that Wales has been used by the Labour Government as a laboratory because Wales had the revaluation, which badly affected pensioners, and we have yet to have the revaluation in England. We will take no lessons from the Secretary of State on what the Government have done for pensioners, when those I talk to have been so badly affected by the revaluation in Wales.

Peter Hain: In that case, why did the Welsh Conservatives, along with the Liberal Democrats, support that revaluation when the Assembly decided to conduct it? Under the new touchy-feely Conservative party, are we not entitled at least to a bit of repentance or consistency from the hon. Lady when she intervenes?
	The Government have also taken action to protect people who are let down by the private pensions marketpeople such as the workers at Allied Steel and Wire in a scandalous caseby setting up the Pension Protection Fund and the pensions regulator and by increasing the financial assistance scheme from 400 million to 2.3 billion. At the Assembly, too, Labour has shown that it is the party best placed to improve the lives of older people in Wales. Many of the Assembly's most ground-breaking and innovative policies have been aimed at older people, including free swimming, health promotion, the strategy for older people and the independent national partnership forum for older people.

Julie Morgan: On the ASW case, in welcoming the huge increase that has gone into the financial assistance scheme, which will increase the number of ASW pensioners who benefit, does my right hon. Friend also accept that some of my constituents, because they started their working lives young and do not fall within the 15 years before retirement criterion, will not benefit at all? Will he do all he can to extend the provision to those people?

Peter Hain: Indeed. The former workers of ASW and their families are grateful to my hon. Friend for championing their interests so well. It is a scandalous case and one of the worst examples of how the pensions market can collapse. The abuses that followed affected some workers who had spent all their adult working lives with the company, in some cases leaving them with absolutely nothing. At least we have taken an important step along the road. The fivefold increase in available funding will mean that even more of my hon. Friend's constituents will benefit, but I accept that some have been left high and dry by the collapse.

Adam Price: In the ASW case, the Government completely disregarded the conclusions and recommendations of the independent parliamentary ombudsman. What guarantee do older people in Wales have that the UK Government will not show equal disregard for the recommendations of the commissioner for older people?

Peter Hain: We would not set up the commissioner for older people only to take no notice, would we? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome our proposal with his characteristic generosity. I acknowledge, to be fair, that his party has supported it in principle. Indeed, as I shall argue later, there is all-party support for the Bill. I believe that the Government deserve credit for introducing the fund and for providing 2.3 billion. I agree that ASW workers were treated scandalously, but at least we are the first Government to try to provide some assistance where we can.

David Evennett: I am listening with great interest to the Secretary of State's speech and Conservative Members support the measure. He has concentrated on pensioners, but the Bill refers to a commissioner for older people. How does he define older people? At what age do people become old? Surely that is an important issue.

Peter Hain: Of course it is. If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to inquire into the Bill, he would know that the age of 60 is the one that applies.
	Just like the Children's Commissioner for Wales, many of the policies that I have been explaining have blazed a trail right across the United Kingdom. Policies such as free bus travel for older people that were pioneered in Wales are now being copied in England. The recent pensions White Paper, published last month, shows that only Labour is capable of helping older people to respond to the challenges of the future.
	We live in an ageing society. By 2050, the number of pensioners will have risen by 50 per cent. At the same time, as many as 12 million people are failing to save enough to guarantee a decent income in retirement. Unless we take action now and plan for the long term, millions of people face an uncertain future. That is why we are building a national consensus around pension reform, and the Bill is part of that. For example, our recent White Paper includes a number of important, far-sighted proposals to help us to meet the pensions challenge and provide for tomorrow's pensioners, as well as today's.
	A new national savings scheme with compulsory contributions from employers and auto-enrolment for employees will boost savings rates for the future. A higher, fairer state pension re-linked to earningsthe earnings link was broken by the Conservativeswill provide a foundation for further saving. A higher retirement age will help us to meet the challenge of an ageing society, and the least well-off will continue to be helped by a guarantee credit linked to earnings.

Cheryl Gillan: I understood that the Bill related to establishing a commissioner for older people and devolved matters. Is the Secretary of State now telling us that he is planning to devolve pensions to the Welsh Assembly? Obviously, if he is making such a fuss about the Government's pensions arrangements, they must be passing them to down to the Assembly, because they have nothing to do with the Bill.

Peter Hain: Dream on. The pensioners of Wales will benefit from this pioneering Billprobably one of the first such Bills in the worldand I am setting the context for this very important initiative.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady finds it embarrassing to have to listen to the incredible record of success of our Labour Government in protecting our senior citizens and lifting millions out of poverty. She does not like to recognise that, bearing mind the miserable record that she was part of under the Conservative Government. Against that backdrop, however, in the way that I have been describing it patiently and carefully

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: No. I need to make progress on the Bill itself.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way, while he is still considering the Bill's background. Does he agree that the Government are the first Government to recognise the problem of poverty for women in old age? Does he not applaud the Government's proposals that will lift so many women out of poverty?

Peter Hain: Indeed. The scandalous way in which many generations of women have been discriminated against in not being able to get the full basic retirement entitlement that men have is now being addressed under our new policy.

Cheryl Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Peter Hain: Of course I will give way, but I wonder whether the hon. Lady wants to stop me watching the World cup match later on.

Cheryl Gillan: Well, it is nice to know that the Secretary of State for Wales is supporting the English team.

Chris Ruane: My right hon. Friend did not say that.

Cheryl Gillan: Well, if the right hon. Gentleman did not say it, he will have the opportunity to do so when he returns to the Dispatch Box. He does me an injustice because I am very happy to listen to an older worker telling me what he is planning to do from the other side of the Dispatch Box. I should just like to remind him that when I was a very junior Minister, I had responsibility for older workers and introduced a campaign to get older people back into work and to try to stop discrimination against older workers, so at least I have a proud record of dealing with that problem not a record to which the right hon. Gentleman probably ever wants to admit.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind all hon. Members that we are discussing a Bill that relates to Wales.

Peter Hain: I thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were going to remind all Members that there is a World cup match coming up; but to respond specifically to the hon. Lady's rather graceless jibe, I will, of course, be supporting England with enthusiasm. I am flying an England flag, not out of my house in Wales, but out of my flat in London. Of course several Chelsea players are playing for the England team, and I will be watching them with enthusiasm if she allows me to do so and if hon. Members are co-operative on this matter. Of course the match starts at 5 pmI just remind the House.
	By the way, I acknowledge the hon. Lady's contribution; it is just a shame that the rest of the pension support was so terrible and that so many pensioners in Wales were plunged into poverty. If we ever have to face the iniquity of a Conservative Government again in decades to come, let us hope that we have an older person's commissioner who can fight against the merciless assault on pensioners' rights that the Conservatives will doubtless be responsible for in the future, as they were in the past.

Roger Williams: Surely the Secretary of State highlights the weaknesses of the Bill? The commissioner's proposed powers will not allow that person to speak directly to Westminster Ministers on issues such as pensions, which are so important to the elderly in Wales. Our noble Friends tried to put that weakness right in the other place, and we will try to put it right in the House.

Peter Hain: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not recognising the devolution settlement. The devolution settlementfor which the people of Wales voted, albeit narrowly, in a referendum in which he and I were on the same side in campaigning for a yes votedid not include the devolution of pensions. Of course it did not. Nor did it include tax and social security policy and a lot of other things. Therefore, it would be entirely wrong to give the older person's commissioner for Wales powers and duties in respect of non-devolved matters
	Equally, however, the commissioner will be able to make representations to me, as the Secretary of State, or to the hon. Gentleman, as a local Member of Parliament, and Westminster Members and Ministers can take up those matters. For example, if a patient is placed by a Welsh commissioning authoritya local council or health authorityacross the border in an old persons' home or perhaps a hospital and complaints arise, the older person's commissioner will also be able to make representations to the Welsh commissioning body for it to take up with the provider across the border in England. It is interesting that the children's commissioner for England and the Children's Commissioner for Wales have worked out satisfactory co-operation arrangements, and all those sorts of things will be possible in future, on a common-sense basis.

Adam Price: The Secretary of State just said that the commissioner will be able to make representations to him. Will the commissioner have the formal right to do so?

Peter Hain: It is not a question of a formal right. I have received letters from the Children's Commissioner for Walesof course I have; I am a Welsh Member of Parliament, like the hon. Gentlemanand of course he can write to me, as the Secretary of State, although he has no formal power to make representations. It is important that we do not undermine the devolution settlement and that we recognise that common-sense arrangements apply. I can assure the House that, if the commissioner identifies concerns about pensioner poverty in Wales, he or she will be able to take action to fight for older people's rights and to fight their corner with the Government.
	Against that backdrop of Labour achievement and forward thinking, the proposals for a commissioner for older people should be seen, and by establishing a commissioner Welsh Labour is, once again, leading the way in responding to the challenges that face older people. Over the next 20 years, the concentration of older people in Wales will increase, with over-60s forming nearly one third of the population. Over the same period, the number of people aged 85 and over will increase by a third. Changing family living patterns, fewer children and the increasing number of single people will also change the shape of our society in Wales.

Betty Williams: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the UK charity Counsel and Care has expressed concern that the Government's social exclusion agenda fails to address the needs of the elderly. I understand what the commissioner's role will be, as far as we know it before we debate it today, but will my right hon. Friend ensure that the role specifically includes assessing the needs of the elderly and banishing their social exclusion where it occurs? I appreciate that the charity is UK-based and is speaking on behalf of all UK senior citizens, but will he take the advantage of the Bill to ensure that the commissioner has that role in Wales?

Peter Hain: Indeed. The commissioner will certainly be able to take into account that important agenda and any issues that my hon. Friend might raise with the commissioner on behalf of her constituents, or that that charity might raise in respect of Welsh pensioners, and the wider implications.
	The demographic changes that I have described mean we must adapt our ways of working to engage older people fully and plan for the significant social and other changes that we face. At present, many older people in Wales are unable to live the lives that they want or deserve because they feel marginalised and discriminated against, with too many barriers preventing them from making a full contribution. Those barriers prevent older people from using their knowledge and skills for the benefit of our economy and everyone in our society.
	It is therefore essential that we enable older people to play the fullest possible role by establishing an independent champion for all older people in Wales. Furthermore, older people are as diverse as any other group in our society, with the needs of one varying widely from the needs of another. The vital role that older people play therefore needs to encompass a wide range of issues, from employment, housing, and transport, to education and sport, as well as health, social services, pensions and long-term care.
	Here again, the commissioner will have a vital role to play, ensuring that our public services are able to provide the best possible service to all older people, helping them live as full a life as possible and making sure that they have access to all the resources they need.
	Older people today are more likely to be healthy, to be working, to be better off, and to be contributing to society as a volunteer, school governor or carer, for example. Nevertheless, there are still many older people who suffer ill health, poor housing, lack of access to services or some other disadvantage. That is particularly true in Wales, with our industrial heritage, our significant rural population, and our greater number of older people, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. A commissioner will be a powerful advocate for those people in Wales, ensuring that their voices are heard.
	The idea for a commissioner was one of the recommendations of the advisory group on a strategy for older people in Wales. The idea was then translated into a firm commitment to establish a commissioner, made in the Welsh Labour manifesto for the 2003 Assembly elections. An advisory group subsequently chaired by the Assembly Deputy Minister with responsibility for older people, John Griffiths, and involving key stakeholders, older people and experts from across Wales, produced a report on the role and responsibilities of a commissioner. That was published for public consultation in May 2004 and contained 17 recommendations.
	The responses to the consultation showed that respondents were overwhelmingly in favour of the concept of an independent commissioner and the functions proposed for the office. Help the Aged said that the establishment of a commissioner for older people
	will place Wales at the forefront of achieving equality and justice for older people
	and
	will aid the good practice across sectors by engendering a culture of equality and dignity for older people.
	The Bill has already been the subject of consideration in the other place. As a result, it has benefited from a number of amendments that clarify and strengthen the powers of the commissioner. Important changes have been made to enable the commissioner to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen and to establish an internal complaints procedure.
	My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee on the draft Bill last year, and it was also considered by the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly. Although its members raised a small number of issues for further consideration, the Assembly Committee was generally supportive of the Bill and its provisions.
	The Bill proposes the establishment of a commissioner who will be independent of Government and of the Assembly, and who will be able to speak on behalf of older people in Wales, helping to raise their profile and increase awareness of their needs. The Bill is firmly based on the model of the Children's Commissioner for Wales and provides for a commissioner for older people with a similar set of powers.
	The commissioner will be able to review the effect on older people in Wales of the discharge, or proposed discharge, of functions of public bodies, such as the Assembly, local authorities, local health boards, NHS trusts and further or higher education organisations in Wales. That will ensure that the work of public bodies has a positive impact on, and takes full account of, the needs of older people. For example, where the commissioner suspects the occurrence of elder abuse, as well as working with the police and local authorities, the commissioner will also be able to review the way a local authority has implemented its policies and procedures for dealing with abuse, and to make recommendations for the future.
	Today is world elder abuse awareness day, and I am proud that we are able, through this debate, to send a very clear message that elder abuse, wherever and however it occurs, is indefensible and unacceptable. The commissioner will have an important role in projecting this message and improving existing protection.
	The Bill also gives the commissioner a power to help to ensure that organisations that provide certain services to older people have arrangements for whistle-blowing and complaints that safeguard and promote the interests of older people. The commissioner will also have the power to check up on advocacy services provided in Wales.
	Another important element of the Bill is the power that it gives to the Assembly to enable the commissioner to examine individual cases and to require information, explanations or assistance from persons about the casepowers equivalent to those of the High Court. That will enable the commissioner to help individuals experiencing service failure to gather the evidence they need to press for charges or to press for change.
	The Bill also enables the commissioner to work jointly with other commissioners and ombudsmen where they may both be entitled to examine individual cases. That will prevent duplication and ensure a joined-up approach to any examination. At present, the power extends to the public services ombudsman for Wales, and there is provision for the Assembly by order to apply it to other commissioners and ombudsmen in the future. For example, the Assembly might want to add the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. That would then clarify on the face of the Bill the powers of the commissioners to act together, to share information and to prepare joint reports. Furthermore, we envisage that the working relationship between the commissioner and those other commissioners and ombudsmen will be formalised by a memorandum of understanding.
	Other powers in the Bill include the discretion to assist an individual in making a complaint or representation, to undertake research or educational activities, to issue guidance on best practice and to make reports to the Assembly on the exercise of the commissioner's functions.
	The Bill also provides for the commissioner to consider and make representations to the Assembly about any matterthis was the point raised by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price)relating to the interests of older people in Wales. This will allow the commissioner to raise non-devolved issues relating to the interests of older people with the Assembly, which could then take them up with the UK Government. In fact, Assembly Ministers and the Under-Secretary have already corresponded on the matter and we are committed to ensuring that the process of responding to representations made by the commissioner works as effectively and efficiently as possible and in a common-sense way, as the children's commissioner has pioneered.
	In addition, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will invite the commissioner to approach us, as UK Ministers responsible for Wales, about any non-devolved matter affecting older people in Wales, just as we have done in the case of the children's commissionera point also raised by the hon. Gentleman. However, it is important to note that the commissioner will not be able to exercise his or her functions directly in relation to non-devolved issues. Those matters are properly the responsibility of the UK Government and it would not be appropriate for a commissioner established by the Assembly and for Wales to have such a remit. The provisions of the Bill therefore preserve these clear lines of democratic accountability. That is important.
	The geography of Wales means that issues affecting older people often cross local authority boundaries, as we have heard, and sometimes national boundaries, too. We have paid particular attention to ensuring that the commissioner is able to assist an older person in Wales with issues that cross the borderfor example, the commissioning of care services in England by Welsh local authorities.
	The Bill defines an older person as someone aged 60 or over. That includes people who are entitled to receive winter fuel and pension credit benefits, women aged 60 receiving the state pension, and those covered by the Assembly's free swimming and bus pass schemes, which also start at 60. This age limit strikes exactly the right balance. If it were any lowerthere were demands for thatit would have significant implications for the commissioner's potential work load. If it were any higher it would miss an important and growing section of older people. By setting the limit at 60, we will ensure that the commissioner is able to play the most effective role possible in championing the interests of older people.
	This important Bill has attracted a good deal of support in Wales from older people and their representatives and all the parties in the National Assembly. I hope that it will receive a similar degree of support on both sides of the House today in the interests of not only senior citizens in Wales, but hon. Members who want to watch England win their World cup match at 5 o'clock.
	The commissioner will provide a vital step forward in addressing ageism and discrimination against older people. The Bill provides the necessary powers to enable the commissioner to play an effective role in turning the tide against such attitudes, and it will improve the quality of life for many older people. It will deliver a real champion for the rights and interests of Welsh senior citizens, to whom Wales owes so much, and I commend it to the House.

Cheryl Gillan: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the House through the details of the Billnever before have I seen a man so desperate to escape from the Dispatch Box to get to the television box!
	I commend the Government's choice of date, because this is international elder abuse day, which is apposite. International elder abuse day is being marked by the Conservative party in Walesthe leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly, Nick Bourne, is going to county hall in Monmouthshire with our older people's champion, Nick Ramsay, who, at age 31, is a fine example of a young man who is taking on the responsibilities and concerns of older people in our community.
	I am delighted to be joined on the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) who will make the winding-up speech, and I hope that the House will give him a warm welcome. I apologise to the House because I shall be leaving before the winding-up speeches. I have informed the Secretary of State about the situation, which depends not on a football match but a train timeI do not have the advantage of a chauffeur-driven car to take me to Wales, so I must rely on the excellent train service this afternoon.
	I broadly welcome the Bill, but there are points of detail that it will be helpful to explore in Committee. The Bill has already been subject to detailed scrutiny in another place, and I want to place on record Conservative Members' gratitude for the sterling work of my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. In another place, he intimated that he has a vested interest in the creation of a commissioner for older people, but, notwithstanding that personal interest, I hope that he remains a champion of Welsh people, young and old, for many years to come.
	Regrettably, I need to inject a note of disharmony into proceedings. I cannot help contrasting the proper scrutiny that this Bill, which has widespread support, is receiving with what will happen to future legislation for Wales. If the Secretary of State gets his way, this Bill is likely to be the last of its kind, because the procedures set out in part 3 of the Government of Wales Bill will reduce scrutiny in this House to a one and a half hour debate on a Order in Council, which we will simply be invited to rubber-stamp. Although future provisions may be more complex and controversial than this Bill, they will receive less scrutiny on the Floor of the House here in Westminster. As the Secretary of State is all too aware, the House will return to that issue shortly.
	The Bill is relatively non-contentious. The proposal to appoint a commissioner for older people, the first anywhere in the United Kingdom, has attracted widespread support. I have read many of the contributions that have been sent in during the passage of the legislation, and it is good to see the level of support right across the board. Indeed, the idea is so good that I do not understand why the Government are not applying it uniformly across the United Kingdom, because the commissioner will not have the ability to scrutinise matters that are not delegated. Some probing will therefore be necessary in Committee to explore the Government's thinking and the reasons for not covering, for example, the whole of England and Wales.

Peter Hain: I have mentioned common-sense arrangements. The Children's Commissioner for Wales already has informal relations with the police and the Prison Service, although those functions are not devolved, and I foresee similar opportunities for the commissioner for older people to do the job that they want to do in the way in which they want to do it. However, it would not be right to include non-devolved matters within the remit of the commissioner for older people in Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand that point, which prompts the question why there will not be a commissioner for England and Wales, because someone who lives 2 yd across the border in England will not have the same protection as their neighbour. I appreciate that the matter concerns devolution, but devolution does not have to act to the detriment of people on one side of the border. It would be interesting to know why the appointment of a commissioner for England was not considered.

Peter Hain: This is one of many pioneering bright ideas from Wales and from Welsh Labour. Who knows what might happen in the future, because the children's commissioner, which was another bright idea from Welsh Labour, was transposed across the border to England? The Conservative party has not been an enthusiastic advocate of devolution, but we need to adopt a common-sense approach.

Cheryl Gillan: Methinks that I have given the Secretary of State an opportunity to make a little party political broadcast, which was not my intention. Many of the organisations that have contributed to the thinking behind the Bill would resent the Labour label.
	Conservative Members would normally look sceptically at a proposal to establish yet another commissionerthere is a commissioner for everything these days. In this instance, however, I shall leave aside my natural scepticism, because it is possible to make a convincing case for this commissioner. As the Secretary of State has said, Wales has a growing proportion of older people compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. Currently, just more than 22 per cent. of the population of Walesabout 600,000 peopleis aged over 60 compared with 20 per cent. of the population in the United Kingdom as a whole, and more than 17 per cent. of the Welsh population is aged over 64 compared with just under 16 per cent. of the UK population. Looking ahead, demographic changes in the next 20 years are expected significantly to alter the balance of the population, with the proportion of people aged 60 or over expected to reach 28 per cent.
	According to research carried out for the Welsh Assembly Government, 430,000 households in Walesone in threewill include someone aged 65 or older by 2017. In the same year, nearly 150,000 households will be headed by a person aged 75 or older, and about 50,000 households will be headed by a person aged 85 or older, which would be an increase of 56 per cent. on current figures.

Philip Hollobone: One significant point about those figures is that if the United Kingdom as a whole contained the same proportion of older people, there would be another 900,000 older people in the United Kingdom.

Cheryl Gillan: That point is valid. The Government should be thinking about how they will cope with the pensioner households in England as well as in Wales. They should be thinking outside the box and not only inside the territory.
	Many people in Wales aged 50 and over suffer from problems associated with poor housing, poor nutrition, lack of opportunity for employment, and inadequate transport services. I know from personal experience as a junior Minister in the last Conservative Administration that age discrimination in employment is often rife, especially when someone has been made redundant in their 40s or 50s. Older people also suffer from being denied pay rises or proper training opportunities on account of their age. Several organisationsAction on Elder Abuse, Help the Aged, Age Concern, the British Institute of Human Rights, and public bodies such as the Commission for Health Improvementhave cited examples of older people's basic rights being violated.

Angela Watkinson: What relationship does my hon. Friend predict that the new commissioner will have with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which recently decided not to approve quality of life improving drugs for people suffering from the early stages of Alzheimer's disease? Increasing numbers of people are in need of those drugs, which also benefit their carers. People often suffer for many years because although their general health is good, those particular drugs have not been approved by NICE. Does my hon. Friend foresee that the commissioner will continue the campaign to try to get them approved?

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It will be interesting to see exactly what the commissioner can achieve over and above Members of Parliament and Ministers, and other representatives of older people. We shall be expecting rather a lot of this commissioner, and I am afraid that they will be expected to deliver. There is a very strong feeling, no matter where one's constituency is, that there is discrimination against older people in terms of the way in which drugs are approved for handing out and the demands made on the health service. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say when we probe these issues further during the passage of the Bill.
	Because of the problems that older people have experienced and reported over the years, and because many of them are reluctant to complain about bad service or poor treatment, several organisations have argued for a dedicated commissioner who can stand up to defend and enforce older people's rights and promote age equality in service provision across the board. However, we should be under no illusions, and we certainly should not try to kid the people of Wales into believing that the commissioner will be a panacea for every problem faced by older people. Several people have rightly argued that the commissioner will be no substitute for improvements such as a better basic state pension or improved personal care. Indeed, when the Bill was published, Help the Aged warned that
	pensions reform and an end to means-tested pensions would do more to improve the lives of pensioner households.
	Nor will the commissioner do much to alleviate the swingeing 94 per cent.or 467increase in band D council tax that has hammered many older people in Wales, or to sort out the chronic problems of the health service in Wales, where older people are reckoned to account for about 60 per cent. of spending. Moreover, legislation alone will not eradicate discrimination overnight. That requires a change of attitudes, which will, unfortunately, take time. However, anything that the newly appointed commissioner can do to speed up the process will be welcome.
	The Secretary of State outlined the various stages through which the Bill has passed, but rather than dwell on those I want to touch on some of the issues that arose as it made its way through the other place and which we may wish to explore in Committee. I am still not entirely clear about the precise role that the Government envisage for the commissioner or what is the primary function of that office. Is the commissioner a kind of Ofwat or Ofcom for the elderly, or something more? I am interested in what the Secretary of State said about the practical and common-sense operation of the system. How does he envisage that working?
	The Government call the commissioner an independent champion of older people and have given him a wide range of quasi-judicial powers. For example, clause 13 provides him with sweeping powers of entry, while clauses 9 and 11 confer on him, in carrying out some of his duties, the same powers as the High Court. In other words, in certain cases he, or she, may have the power to act as investigator, judge and jury. We will want to examine the circumstances in which those powers are to be exercised, as well as the extent of the envisaged operations of the commissioner's staff. Another of the commissioner's principal functions will be to make representations to the National Assembly on matters affecting the interests of older peoplealmost, in effect, usurping at worst, or duplicating at best, the role of Ministers. We will seek clarification on those areas and on the way in which the commissioner and his staff will work with, or across, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Welsh Assembly and other organisations.
	The Bill predates by some months the publication of the Government of Wales Bill, which formally ends the corporate Assembly and establishes the executive and legislative functions by establishing a Welsh Assembly Government as a distinctive entity. Does the Secretary of State envisage that the commissioner's main representations will be made to the relevant Minister in the Assembly Government or to the Assembly itself, and how will that relationship work?
	Finance is another matter of concern. The office of the commissioner will be funded by the National Assembly out of money that has already been allocated to it under the block grant from Westminster. Start-up costs are estimated at 500,000, with annual running costs for the commissioner and a predicted staff of about 30 estimated at 1.5 million. We will want to know exactly what limits will be placed on that expenditure, how the office will operate, and what limits will be placed on the number of staff that the commissioner can employ. What discussions have been held with the First Minister and Members of the Welsh Assembly Government to establish where the money to run this operation will come from, and which areas of expenditure in Wales will be cut or sacrificed in order to find it? What could have been done with that money if it had been spent directly on older people and their needs? What other Departments in the Assembly will make cuts in their services to the elderly to pay for the new operation? Will they face some reductions in order to accommodate the large amount of money that has to be found in the budget for the commissioner?
	We believe that the commissioner should be independent and should make representations about the effectiveness of the operations of the Welsh Assembly Government and Ministers. But how can that happen if he is funded directly by the same Welsh Ministers upon whose performance he will be delivering a critical analysis? That is the scenario as a consequence of schedule 1 of the Bill and schedule 11 of the Government of Wales Bill. Responsibility for funding the commissioner will be transferred from the Assembly to Welsh Ministers, as it will in respect of the children's commissioner. As my noble Friend Baroness Noakes pointed out in the other place, the result is that in future the commissioner's funding is to be transferred to the very people from whom they are supposed to be independent. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that that is illogical and undermines the Government's argument that the commissioner will be an independent champion of older people. We should explore that in Committee.
	It is particularly relevant to repeat that the work of the commissioner will not act as a panacea given that, under clause 2, the commissioner's powers to make representations on behalf of older people will, as the Secretary of State confirmed, be confined to matters that are devolved to the National Assembly. He must be aware that a great many of the issues that affect older people in Wales will still be decided here in Westminsterpensions and benefits being two obvious examples. In addition, the limitation on the commissioner's exercise of powers to devolved areas only is unrealistic as, in the words of my noble Friend Lord Roberts:
	Individual cases do not...fall neatly into devolved or non-devolved areas.[ Official Report, House of Lords, 15 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 1240.]
	My noble Friend speaks with considerable experience of political life in Wales, both as a long-serving Member of this House and as a Minister.
	Rather than simply making representations to the Assembly, which will then decide what, if any, action to take, would not it make sense to adopt a more pragmatic approach? I sense that the Secretary of State is considering that. Could we not amend the Bill so that, in some circumstances, the commissioner could have direct access to the relevant Secretary of State if he or she deems it necessary? I hope such an amendment will be considered in Committee without the Government appearing to lose face. We hope that we can work together constructively to get the measure right before it reaches the statute book.

Peter Hain: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. It is important that we do not blur channels of accountability. The commissioner is appointed by the Welsh Assembly Government through the normal, independent Nolan-type procedures. He or she is not a puppet of that Government but an independent figure, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. However, one cannot serve and be accountable to two authoritiesthe United Kingdom Government and the Welsh Assemblyat the same time. However, as I said, that has not been a problem for the children's commissioner and it will not be a problem for the commissioner for older people in championing the rights of senior citizens.

Cheryl Gillan: I appreciate that intervention. However, we need to examine that independence carefully, especially when we consider schedule 1(3)(3), which provides for amounts to be payable at the Assembly's discretion. We need to explore details, perhaps to satisfy my understanding rather than to be dogmatic about anything. I still maintain that access to the relevant Secretary of State would not blur lines of communication but deal holistically with pensioners and senior citizens in Wales because older people in Wales come under two regimes. We need to have a debate about that in Committee.

Philip Hollobone: Those of us with some limited experience of local government know that the trend is increasingly to provide a one-stop-shop service for our constituents. In Kettering, anyone who wants to complain about the county council goes to the borough council offices and there is an agreement between the authorities that the complaint will be taken up. People in Wales will become confused and disappointed if the commissioner cannot advance their cause.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is right that there is a danger of that. There is a question about points of access to the system for individual citizens. It appears as though there may still be an opportunity for confusion and the role is not as cohesive as we envisaged when we first considered the matter. The devil is in the detail and the Government must have the opportunity to assure us that what we fear is not the case or show us that there will be a cohesive point of entry into the system for older people rather than the divided one that an initial reading of the Bill suggests.
	The Secretary of State mentioned that, under the Bill as drafted, an older person is defined as someone who is 60 or older. When reading the valuable contributions that such a wide variety of organisations made to the consultation process, it is clear that many people wanted the age limit to be reconsidered. I appreciate that there was not general agreement and that proposals ranged from 50 years of age to 55, 60 and 65. However, many problems that face older people, especially discrimination in employment, occur at a younger age than 60.
	The Government's consultation document, Opportunity Age: Meeting the challenges of ageing in the 21st century, referred to several problems that face people over 50. They have not changed since the time when I dealt with such issues. In Committee in the Lords, my noble Friend Lord Roberts called for the definition of an older person to be reduced to 50. The Government responded by saying that that would automatically extend the commissioner's remit from approximately 600,000 people to more than 1 million. Ministers in the other place also argued that 60 is the age at which people become entitled to numerous benefits, such as winter fuel payments and, in the case of womenfor now at leastthe state pension.
	Again, I wonder whether there is not some case for flexibility by enabling the commissioner to take action to help those over 50 when he or she deems it appropriate. I hope that the Government will take a pragmatic approach so that we can explore whether the age limit in some instances could be loosened instead of sticking rigidly to an age limit of 60.
	The Bill is welcome but it is something of a vehicle for Ministers' party political broadcasts so that, at the next Assembly elections, they can say, Look at what we've done for older people in Waleswe've given you a commissioner.

Chris Ruane: And why not?

Cheryl Gillan: I note the hon. Gentleman's comment.

Angela Watkinson: As an older person who is one quarter Welsh, I suggest that we should view the matter as a rich seam into which to tap rather than a body of people who need a lot of help.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend looks eternally young to me and I shall always remind the Secretary of State that I am younger than him, as I told him when he asked my age behind the Chair earlier.
	Despite the Government's best intentions, older people in Wales will face the same problems and the Bill will not address, let alone resolve, many of them. Many problems have been created by a Labour regime in Wales that has been unable to bring itself to embark on the reforms necessary to deliver the improved public services on which so many disadvantaged and vulnerable people depend.
	Although the measure has a great deal of merit, it should not pass through the House without detailed scrutiny. I want to ensure that the establishment of a commissioner for older people in Wales does not replace the work of Assembly Members or Ministers in this House or the Assembly. I hope that we can produce a good Bill that will, in turn, establish something beneficial for older people in Wales.
	The Bill is not perfect and requires more work. However, with that proviso, I am pleased to wish it well. The Secretary of State and all hon. Members who are looking forward to the football match will be happy to know that I have no intention of opposing Second Reading.

Nia Griffith: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the important debate on establishing a commissioner for older people in Wales, and especially for letting me do so early, because I need to resume my duties in Committee this afternoon.
	I am sure that we are all aware of the way in which older people make an extremely valuable contribution to our communities. Many older people provide support for their sons and daughters, many help with the grandchildren and many are carers for their parents or other elderly relatives. Many help to fill the skills gap by continuing to work. Older people are the backbone of many of our voluntary organisations and cultural groups.
	When I go to any groups of pensioners or retired people, I always find that we have a lively debate, which covers a range of issues. When older people get into campaigning mode, they can be a formidable force and will not take no for an answer. Recently, users of St. Paul's day centre in my constituency got wind of the fact that the county council was considering the possibility of closing it. They immediately set to work, organising a petition, enlisting the support of local councillors, Catherine Thomasthe local Assembly Memberand me. They organised a coach so that the day centre users could go to lobby councillors at county hall and arranged to address the full council. I was proud to be there with them and proud to be sitting by Mary Williams when she gave a speech, which was well argued and came straight from the heart. It could not have failed to move every councillor there. The result was that a decision was taken to keep the centre open five days a week.
	Things do not always work out so well, however. Older people do encounter difficulties, come up against discrimination and get pushed to the bottom of the pile. That is why it is so important that we establish a commissioner for older people who will, among other things, scrutinise public services and public bodies in Wales to ensure that they are discharging their functions properly in relation to older people, and who will provide help to older people when they make complaints against the health service or a local authority in Wales. The commissioner should also issue best practice guidance to the public bodies and public services in Wales, to help to promote and safeguard the interests of older people. It is for those reasons that I am pleased to support the Bill, which represents a significant step forward in implementing our manifesto commitment to security and dignity for all in old age.

Roger Williams: Welsh Liberal Democrats also welcome the Bill and will not oppose its Second Reading. However, we shall raise a number of points in Committee because we believe that the Bill could be strengthened to protect older people in Wales.
	I would like to acknowledge the long hours and hard work that the noble Lords have put in on the Bill in the other place. I particularly want to pay tribute to the dedication and tenacity of Lord Roberts, Lord Livsey and Lord Thomas, who performed their duties with great energy and enthusiasm.
	When the Government revealed their White Paper last year, the Secretary of State described it in his usual understated way as a trailblazing Bill for Wales, and I think that he used the term again this afternoon. I wish that we could share his excitement. However, we must question exactly what kind of a trail the Bill is blazing for Wales. The Prime Minister has famously said that his greatest political regret was not going far enough with his policies on reform. In my opinion, the Bill comes close to falling into that trap. Like the Government of Wales Bill, it moves us in the right direction but falls well short of where it should be. This is progress by pigeon step rather than a great leap forward. I think that it was the Prime Minister who also said that the Labour Government were at their best when they were at their boldest. The Bill does not show the Government being bold; it shows them at their most timid.
	Wales has a large and growing population of older people. More than 20 per cent. of the population in Wales is over 60, with that population likely to rise in the next 20 years. By 2021, nearly 500,000 households in Wales will contain at least one person over the age of 65. Policies directed at helping to improve the lives of this large sector of Welsh society are very welcome, not least because many older people in Wales are vulnerable, financially and socially. We applaud the Government's intentions with this policy, but we have some serious reservations about the Bill.
	For the commissioner to be effective, he must have a sufficiently broad remit and sufficiently tough powers, and he must be given a voice in the relevant corridors of power. The most pressing failure of the Bill is the commissioner's relatively weak powers in relation to non-devolved matters. At present, the commissioner's input on issues such as pensions, benefits and employment is significantly compromised. Let us imagine that the commissioner had been in place last November, and had seen the Turner report, the Government's response and the new pensions White Paper all come and go. According to the Bill, the commissioner would have had no right to communicate directly with the Ministers responsible for an enormously influential step change in pensions policy. His voice would have been limited on an issue of seismic importance for the people he was paid to represent. I still find it incredible that a pensioner in Wales will be able to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, yet the commissioner will not be allowed make any such input to them directly.

Cheryl Gillan: rose

Peter Hain: rose

Roger Williams: I give way to the Secretary of State.

Peter Hain: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise to the hon. Lady for butting across her, as it were.
	I should like to help the hon. Gentleman, and possibly the hon. Lady, by saying that I made it clear earlier that the commissioner would be able to write to me or to the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger). That is our job; as Secretary of State for Wales and Minister in the Wales Office, we are the gateway to the rest of Whitehall. That has long been an established practice, and it has been widely used by many independent bodies and individuals across Wales.

Roger Williams: We understand what the Secretary of State is saying, but we wish that the Bill were able to improve and increase the devolved settlement, and to enable it to become more mature. We wish that it would allow the commissioner, who will necessarily be an independent officer, to have more powers.

Cheryl Gillan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will agree that a reply often comes from the Secretary of State for Wales saying, This is not my responsibility. In response to a question on prisons, for example, he would say that it was a matter for the Home Secretary. There will be issues over access to the commissioner. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, which started in the House of Lords, is coming to this House on Monday. I wonder how the commissioner will relate to the independent barring board that that Bill introduces. This will be of great concern, because the measure involves people being barred from working with vulnerable adults. There is such complexity to these issues, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that they are not addressed by this Bill.

Roger Williams: I agree with the hon. Lady, and I am sure that we will raise these points in Committee. Our constituents in Wales want the commissioner to have direct access to the person who is likely to be able to achieve a result, either for themselves on a personal basis or for a group of people involved in a particular issue. The hon. Lady has pointed out one of the issues involved, namely the barring of people from working with vulnerable persons.
	Figures obtained by the Welsh Liberal Democrats suggest that, of all the complaints made by older people to citizen's advice bureaux, 80 per cent. are concerned with pensions and tax credits. Needless to say, neither of these subjects is devolved. As well as being unable to meet directly with Ministers on these issues, the commissioner will be unable to take up individual cases on non-devolved matters. On the basis of those figures, and of the information from the citizen's advice bureaux, the commissioner would be able to help with only one in five of the cases brought to him.
	Giving the commissioner the power to make direct representations to UK Ministers would give greater support to elderly people in Wales. Because of that, we would like the commissioner to have the ability to make direct representations to Westminster Ministers. He will be paid and employed by the Assembly and have the right to comment on the implications for older people of actions taken by a whole range of bodies, including the Assembly, the Environment Agency, and local health boards and trusts. Why should he not have the right to give direct feedback to the one body that will arguably have a greater effect on the lives of pensioners in Wales than any other: the UK Government?
	We are slightly concerned to note the number of amendments tabled by the Government in the other place, and the fact that the Assembly plenary debate on this issue took place on the day after the Bill's Second Reading in the House of Lords. That could lead people to suppose that the Government were rushing the Bill through, or that they had got their procedure mixed up. Confusion will arise, because people in Wales will not know what the commissioner's role is in relation to devolved and non-devolved matters. It needs to be absolutely clear, not only to us and to the Lords, but to the older people in Wales who will be using this service, what the commissioner can and cannot do. We in this place usually know the difference between what is devolved and what is not, although I sometimes have difficulty when constituents ask me a question about a particular issue. I do not have the Government of Wales Act 1998 ingrained on my soul at the moment.
	People will assume that an older people's commissioner will deal with all issues affecting older people. I imagine that there will be a great deal of surprise in Llandrindod when they learn that the commissioner for older people will not be able to speak to the Government about pensions, for example. The issue of clarity is paramount, and I would grateful if the Minister expanded on how he envisages the older persons' commissioner working alongside similar posts, such as the public services ombudsman and the parliamentary ombudsman. The Secretary of State touched on that issue, which is a significant one. We are all aware of the dangers of excessive bureaucracy and service duplication, and it is important that the Bill should not create further confusion and complication for service users.
	There are other limitations in the Bill that could seriously affect the commissioner's ability to do his job successfully. As has been mentioned, today is world elder abuse awareness day, and I am sure the whole House will join me in congratulating its organisers on their great work in highlighting what is a very serious problem. The Action on Elder Abuse helpline tells us that, in 2003-04, 22,000 people in Wales aged over 65 resided in care homes. Some 45 per cent. of those care homes were independently funded, 34 per cent. were run by local authorities and provided nursing care, and 21 per cent. were run by local authorities with no nursing care provided.
	In 2004, the Action on Elder Abuse helpline received 280 calls reporting 428 instances of alleged abuse, 37 per cent. of which related to psychological abuse, 21 per cent. to financial abuse, 16 per cent. to physical abuse, 12 per cent. to neglect and 2 per cent. to sexual abuse. Some 20 per cent. of such abuse occurred in care homes, and 36 per cent. of those suffering abuse in care homes who complained of such abuse identified paid workers as their abusers. Help the Aged has noted that residents in any care home funded or owned by a local authority can exercise their human rights. However, those in privately run care homes, or those who are placed in local authority-run care homes but who pay for their care, are not legally protected by the Human Rights Act 1998. As many as nine out of 10 care homes in the UK are operated by private organisations. Two thirds of people living in those homes are paid for by local councils. This is an issue for the 1998 Act, but it also raises the question of where the commissioner will fit in with dealing with it. He needs to contribute to a change in the law; if he does not, he will be nothing but a toothless tiger.

Julie Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the clause allowing the commissioner to enter homes such as those that he describes?

Roger Williams: Help the Aged has expressed concern about the question of the commissioner having power to enter such homes. We will get back to Help the Aged on this issue, because it is still voicing some concerns. We will have to examine the relevant clause in Committee.
	Is this Bill the right way forward for the Government to improve the lives of older people in Wales? There is much that the Government should be doing to aid older people. Scrapping council tax would be a start, as that regressive and unfair tax hits Welsh pensioners harder than anyone else. When the Lyons report concludes later this year, I hope that the Government will review their reactionary approach and radically reform that punitive Tory tax policy.
	I shall now make mention of a constituency issue relating to the elderly. People who live in park homesmost Members have park homes in their constituenciesare often very vulnerable. The council tax revaluation hit park home owners hard. A number of sites where there were no park homes in any band other than band A now have homes in bands A, B, C and D, which has led to huge increases in the council tax paid. Many people move into park homes later in life to get some capital out of their bricks-and-mortar homes and to have a cheaper lifestyle. The legislation that sets out how council tax valuation should be done covers England and Wales, yet it seems to be implemented differently in Wales from how it is in England. If the commissioner looks into that issue, that will be of great benefit to elderly people living in park homes.
	On pensions, many of the Government's new proposals are welcome and in line with Liberal Democrat policy. But those new proposals will still lean heavily on the broken crutch of means testing, which is failing Welsh pensioners. Currently, as many as 150,000 Welsh pensioners are not getting the pensions that they need and are entitled to because of failures in means-testing. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) has highlighted how many pensioners in Wales are not applying for the pension credit. As a body, Welsh pensioners are probably losing almost 200 million a year.
	Labour's Government in the Welsh Assembly promised free personal care for the disabled, but they have reneged on that manifesto pledge, refusing to help many of those who are unable to help themselves. In Scotland, where the Liberal Democrats are in power with the Labour party, all older people get free personal care, thus easing the burden on hospital services and granting to some of the most vulnerable people in our society quality care in their own homes, and removing the threat of having to sell their homes to fund their care.
	I make those points because they raise further questions about the role of the commissioner for older people. We know, by and large, what problems older people in Wales face. They face disproportionate tax burdens, an inefficient tax credits system and an unhelpful health system. The commissioner can help to raise the profile of these issues, but his appointment cannot be a substitute for direct and progressive policy changes on pensions, benefits, housing and welfare. An old people's commissioner who cannot give direct feedback to Ministers on a matter as important as pensions is like a transport commissioner who cannot speak directly to the Secretary of State for Transport. Unless the commissioner can pass direct judgment on the primary issues affecting older people, his ability to represent older people in Wales will be compromised.
	The Bill has potential. A commissioner with teeth, and with a broad mandate and an expanded field of vision, could play an important role in representing the one in five people in Wales who are over 60 years old. We will support the Bill today and we will table amendments in Committee to enhance the scope of the commissioner's role. If implemented in the right way, the new role could have a genuinely beneficial impact on older people in Wales; if it is not, the commissioner is in danger of being a classic new Labour projectone of surface over substance, publicity over reform, and symbolism over action. Unless we lend due clarity and muscle to the commissioner's role, we risk making him a toothless tiger who is unable to exert any significant influence on devolved issues such as pensions, benefits and employment, all of which are vital to pensioners in Wales.

Madeleine Moon: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I promise that I shall be brief, so that Members can get to their television sets and so that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) can catch her train. She clearly knows very little about Wales if she thinks that First Great Western runs an excellent train service there; it is one of the worst operating in the UK. However, let us move on.
	I want to begin by referring to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), whose private Member's Bill of three years ago set the scene for today's debate. I want also to acknowledge the role that John Griffiths, AM, who has recently been appointed carers' champion in the Assembly, has played in bringing this Bill before the House today.
	Before entering this House, I spent 30 years working with vulnerable people alongside my colleagues in social services and the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales, providing services and seeking to drive up standards, and spending far too much time investigating abusethe hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) referred to this issuespecifically abuse of older people.
	I, too, want to acknowledge that today is world elder abuse awareness day. Unlike the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, I think that the role of commissioner for older people will provide critical extra value for Wales in protecting vulnerable individuals. It will not weaken one iota the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill that we will consider on MondayI hope to be called to speak on that Bill, tooif anything, it will strengthen it.
	I have considered the Bill as someone with a background of work in raising standards and awareness of the problems people face. We need people with tenacity and a willingness to look for problems and find solutions. It is a sad fact that too many people, especially on issues of abuse, do not want to accept what happens. They would prefer to find a way not to look for or find such problems. That is why I welcome the general functions outlined in clause 2(1)(a) to (d), which are wide ranging. The review arrangements outlined in clause 5 are also comprehensive.
	Advocacy is a much underrated function and when I was an inspector care home owners had not really begun to appreciate how vital it is. I welcome the commissioner's role in tackling the issue and the fact that he or she will be able to consider the availability of advocacy and the training for those working as advocates. The job requires specific training and the capacity to undertake the role. The competency of those working as advocates must be examined and the commissioner will have the opportunity to do so. The functioning of advocacy services and their general availability across Wales will also come under the purview of the commissioner, and we should all welcome that.
	The commissioner will also be able to consider complaints. When I was an inspector I used to tell care home owners, who do not like receiving complaints, that they were their best friend. A complaint tells them what they can improve, what should be changed and what is not working. Unfortunately, too many people see a complaint as a threat.
	Complaints can also be a way of discovering underlying abuse. For example, I inspected a care home and the complaints book said that a service user had complained that her bath water was cold. Alongside was the handwritten report of the investigation of the complaint by the staff at the care home, which said, Add more hot water. That seems a simple solution, but I asked the owner of the home to bring me her monitoring records for the water temperatures in the home. The records revealed that water temperatures were incredibly lowlittle above tepid. I pointed out to the owner that it would not have mattered for how many hours the hot tap had been run, the bath water would still have been cold. The handyman for the home said that he thought that as long as water temperatures were below the required maximum temperature they were all right. The staff had not checked and a doubly incontinent service user, who needed frequent bathing, had been forced to suffer the indignity of cold baths. That is the sort of abusive and neglectful treatment that can be picked up through casual examination of complaints. I am glad that the commissioner will also have the ability to examine complaints, because that will help to raise standards and support service users.
	Whistleblowing will also come under the commissioner's purview, and it is, all too often, the way abuse is revealed. It is often the capacity to retain anonymity that allows someone to come forward with information on something about which they are not happy, so that something can be done. I agree with the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire that the commissioner will have a vital role in considering how best to assess people to determine who should be excluded from working in care settings, so that Wales has the most robust system possible. I have had experience of whistleblowing on hours worked by staff, some of whom worked for more than 90 hours a week caring for vulnerable people, including those who were aggressive and difficult to manage. When staff are that tired, they do not provide the best quality of care.
	Why do we need a commissioner? After all, we already have care standards inspectors, protection of vulnerable adults procedures, an ombudsman and complaints procedures. The question can best be answered by giving an example of why we needed the children's commissioner. It is a case that I deal with personally and shows how the necessary change would not have been made without the involvement of the children's commissioner. I was leaving the House one Thursday to travel back to my constituency when I received a telephone call from a constituent, asking me to call back as a matter of urgency. I was in a taxi, which was not the right place for the call, so I asked my office to deal with it. The caller was a gentleman whose father-in-law had died more than a year previously and who, six years before his death, had worked as a support worker taking vulnerable young children to school. When clearing the deceased man's house, the family discovered that, only a few days earlier, he had been sent a full report of every child with a disability and who needed to attend school in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies). The list included the children's names, addresses, dates of birth, schools attended, details of their disabilities and the times of collection from home and return from school. Imagine if such information had got into the hands of someone who wanted to abuse children.
	I went to the local authority's chief executive, but he did nothing and passed it on to the department responsible for sending out the tender. It said that it was merely following standard industry practice. I went to the local authority's leaderwho is, I have to say, a Liberal Democratwho was initially very concerned, but then discovered that it had happened under the Labour administration and so was less concerned because she could not be held accountable for it. No action was taken. The director of personal services was unable to carry out an investigation because it was August and people were on holiday. I went to the information commissioner, who was also unable to do anything.
	Then I wrote to the children's commissioner. In fairness, he initially thought that it could not be happening. He could not believe that such information was being sent to taxi companies, some of which had gone out of business or changed address. In the example of my constituent's father-in-law, he had been dead for more than a year and had not been not involved in school transport work for six years before that. The information was lying around in the public realm. Once the children's commissioner appreciated the risk, it took him two minutes to make the commitment to change the situation. He was the only person who did and that is reason enough to have an older people's commissioner in Wales to perform a similar function on their behalf. That is the sort of person we need as commissionersomeone who wants to take the bull by the horns, grapple with problems and insist on change taking place. Incidentally, the children's commissioner found that Bridgend was not the only local authority in Wales operating that policy. It was happening in other local authorities and the commissioner was able to ensure that children in other areas were protected.
	Clause 16 provides for the commissioner for older people to work with the public services ombudsman for Wales. Some might claim that that is duplication and that I could have gone to the public services ombudsman.
	I also welcome clause 8 on assistance and clause 10 on the examination of cases. It will be necessary to examine closely the regulations on those functions, but I welcome the provision of assistance to older people in making complaints, because that will make a big difference. Those clauses also mean that the commissioner will assist older people and that they will not be required to find their way through a difficult and complex process on their own. The local government ombudsman focuses on maladministration and personal injustice, but is passive rather than proactive.
	I shall illustrate that with another constituency case of mine. I sent a complaint to a highly respected voluntary organisation about the way in which my local authority had dealt with a particular matter. The local government ombudsman had been sent a number of papers and appropriate information, but the only proactive step that he took before he decided that he needed to do nothing was to ring up a local authority officer. The officer said that the authority had been worried about the matter for ages and that everything was fineand that was it. One telephone call was made, and no further action was taken. I spoke to the ombudsman on the telephone, and got the impression that he did not think that it was vital that he got a letter of confirmation from the local authority officer about the actions that the authority had taken.
	In contrast, the commissioner will be proactive rather than passive. He will support people who make complaints, and help them to put the evidence together. He will seek information and mount challenges on older people's behalf. That is the big strength of the role, and it is something that we have been missing.
	However, I have some concerns about schedules 2 and 3, which list those persons whose functions are subject to review under clause 3, and to review and monitoring under clause 5. Neither schedule mentions the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. Other bodies that have recently been absorbed into the Assembly's functionssuch as the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Agencyare included in schedule 3, so why is the CSIW missing? I hope that the Government accept that it should be included.
	I raise that point for two reasons. First, clause 3(1)(c) refers to
	the discharge or proposed discharge in relation to Wales of a relevant function of a person mentioned in schedule 2.
	I am worried that that would exclude the CSIW, as it is not mentioned there. Secondly, clause 3 (2)(c) defines a relevant function as
	any other person mentioned in schedule 2.
	Again, the CSIW is not mentioned in schedule 2. I recognise that clause 4 will allow the Assembly to add it at a later date, but it would be better to include it before the Bill leaves this House.
	The reason why I want the CSIW to be included in schedule 2 is best explained by reference to an Adjournment debate held in June last year, just after I came to the House. I shall not mention the specific case involved, as it is still under consideration, but I want to refer to the general concept highlighted in that debate.
	The Registered Homes Act 1984 set out the procedure when a registration authority wanted to remove a care home's registration. It said that, at tribunal, the decision would be based on the situation in the home at the time that the authority made its decision to withdraw registration. Under the Care Standards Act 2000, however, the care standards tribunal must make a decision based on the situation at the time of the tribunal hearing itself.
	That would appear to mean that care homes are able to do nothing and make no changes until the tribunal hearing. When the tribunal sits, they can make a few changes and demonstrate that they will make improvements, with the result that they can no longer be deregistered.
	We must find ways to change that requirement. Some homes play the game and do not protect vulnerable peoplethey do not meet required care standards or they use legal niceties to avoid their responsibilities to older people. Such homes must be challenged. I hope that the older people's commissioner will use clause 2(1)(d)which requires him to
	keep under review the adequacy and effectiveness of law affecting the interests of older people
	to tackle the problems posed by the Care Standards Act 2000 and make the changes needed to protect those who live in old people's homes in Wales.
	The older people's commissioner will have 30 staff. Start-up costs are estimated at 0.5 million, and running costs in the first full year of operation at 1.5 million. I assume that the funding will come from the Assembly, and Opposition Members have asked about the services that will have to be cut to meet the cost. That is an appalling question, given that 1.5 million is a drop in the ocean when compared with the need to protect older people. The commissioner and his 30 staff members will proactively fight for older people and represent their needs. They will make sure that the necessary services provided to older people are of the requisite standard.
	With this Bill, the Government are recognising that Wales is a small country with a high percentage of older people. They are giving those people priority, and making it clear that they are valued members of the Welsh community. We must insist that older peoplein this generation and in times to comeget the best quality services. Establishing a commissioner for older people is the way to ensure that that happens.

Adam Price: In the interests of Anglo-Welsh relationsand of any Wrexham supporters who might be in our midstI too shall try to keep my comments fairly brief.
	I and my party support the principle behind this important Bill, and the model of the commissioner that is emerging is worth celebrating. Indeed, my party is calling for a language commissioner as well.
	There is a difference between an ombudsman and a commissioner. The ombudsman model was developed in Scandinavia around the beginning of the 20th century, and was designed to provide a complaints procedure in cases of maladministration. The commissioner will not be a quango; the post has no role in delivery and is therefore entirely independent of the Executive, whose policies are to be investigated. The commissioner model includes elements of the traditional ombudsman role, but it has a much wider remit to investigate general matters of public policy, and I am sure that the Assembly will apply the commissioner model to other policy areas in the future.
	It is great to see Wales engaging in such an important form of social innovation, and on a global scale. There are ombudsmen for older people in other jurisdictions, but the commissioner for older people in Wales will be the first post of its kind to be created in the world, and that is a credit to the Assembly Government.
	The proposal to establish a commissioner for older people has all-party support. It was a Labour party manifesto commitmentone of the few that the Labour Government in Cardiff Bay are on course to deliver.
	I want to echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). By and large, my party supports the principle behind the Bill, although we have some concerns about the responsibility for non-devolved areas. Moreover, I bristled a little when the hon. Gentleman called for the commissioner to have teeth. In this context, that is slightly insensitive and might fall foul of anti-discrimination measures[ Laughter.]but I think we got the point.
	We are revisiting a problem that arose in our debates on the children's commissioner: in these post-devolutionary times, how do we ensure accountability when there is some blurring of the lines of responsibility? Given the still complex nature of the devolution settlement in Wales, welet alone our constituentsoften struggle to get our minds around such issues. The children's commissioner does not have full powers to investigate where a child is placed in care through the courts, but has such powers in relation to a sibling who is in care voluntarily. That is the type of problem that will arise if the Bill's provisions on non-devolved matters remain as they are.
	Clause 2(2) states that the powers of the commissioner
	are exercisable only in relation to fields in which the Assembly has functions.
	That is clear. The commissioner will not have those powers in relation to anything that is non-devolved. There will be no power to promote awareness or provision, to encourage best practice or to keep under review any non-devolved matter. On non-devolved matters, the commissioner will have the right only to make representations, under subsection (3); there will be no power to investigate. That is the key issue.
	Indeed, clause 10(2) makes it clear that the commissioner will have no power to investigate individual complaints relating to non-devolved matters. Under clause 15(2) the commissioner will have no power to make reports on non-devolved matters. Another clause provides that the commissioner will have no power to initiate research in relation to non-devolved matters. Those are critical points. The commissioner will, of course, have the rightlike the 3 million people of Walesto make representations by writing a letter to the Secretary of State or the Minister, but the key issue is the basis for such representations. If the commissioner has no power to review a non-devolved policy area, no power to commission or conduct research on a non-devolved power relating to older people in Wales and no power to investigate individual complaints, on what basis will the representations be made?
	The Government rightly support the principle of evidence-based policy making. Without those statutory powers the commissioner for older people in Wales will be open to legal challenge. The commissioner will be acting ultra vires if he or she initiates research or undertakes a review of non-devolved policy. If the commissioner merely writes to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will have the perfect right to say, Well, what's your proof? There will be no proof because the commissioner has no power to investigate. That is the key issue.
	Of course, as the Secretary of State said, representations can be made informally. I am sure that the door of the Wales Office is always open, even to members of my party from time to time, when we behave ourselves. The key issue is not the right to write a letter or to go to see the Secretary of State; it is whether the commissioner has the right to investigate and the power to make a report, which will give a formal basis for a structured discussion with Westminster Ministers.
	The commissioner will have the power to make representations to the Assembly, but there is no requirement for the Assembly to respond, nor for it to pass such representations to the Westminster Government and thus, at the end of that rather circumlocutory process, for the Westminster Government to respond at all. The key problem is that the Bill gives us no confidence about non-devolved matters, many of which have been mentioned. Some aspects of health and education have been devolved but others are non-devolved. Under the Bill, there is no clear process whereby the commissioner will be able to consider those matters comprehensively, which seriously weakens the Government's stated intent for the measure. It weakens the independence of the commissioner. If he or she has no right to communicate directly with the Government but has to go via the Assembly Government, not only will there be questions about the commissioner's independence from the Assembly Government, but the comprehensiveness of the commissioner's role as champion and advocate will be weakened.
	Older people, like younger and middle-aged people in Wales, are not necessarily constitutional experts and might not understand the intricacies of the devolution settlement. They see serviceswhoever provides themand they want the older people's commissioner to take up their problems, regardless of whether Westminster or Cardiff Bay is accountable according to the settlement. That is the problem facing the Government under the Bill as currently drafted. Indeed, it is line with what the people of Wales are saying.
	One of the questions in the consultation exercise conducted by the National Assembly for Wales was:
	Do you agree that the new powers establishing the Commission should include the power to make representations directly to the UK Government on issues of importance to older people in Wales?
	One hundred and thirty-nine respondents agreed that the commissioner should have the formal power to make direct representations; only two disagreed. It is absolutely clear that stakeholder and representative organisations, including Age Concern and Help the Aged, support the principle that the commissioner be given formal powers on non-devolved matters. That was the position of the Welsh Assembly's advisory group on setting up the older people's commissioner and it was also taken by a majority of the Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, including its Labour members. There is wide consensus in Wales that the commissioner should have the power to initiate research and make reports on areas of non-devolved policy. That would be the basis for the fireside chats down the road at Gwydyr House.
	Finally, I want to touch on the definition of age, on which the shadow Secretary of State for Wales expounded. It is an important issue. In the consultation, the majority of the consultees came out in favour of the principle of flexibility and supported giving the commissioner the right to look at issues involving people aged 50-plus, although accepting the general definition of 60, which has not changed since the Bill was in draft form. There should be some flexibility, especially in employment-related matters where age discrimination is as serious, if not more serious, in Wales, due to our demographics. It is likely that the commissioner for older people in Wales will be up and running before the UK commission for equality and human rights, so I urge the Minister to look again at flexibility, possibly through regulation, in terms of age-related issues that affect people at 50 plus. That is the age for the starting-point of the Welsh Assembly Government's welcome and innovative older people's strategy, so there should be some flexibility under the Bill, too. Clearly, as has been mentioned, there are also health issues for the 50-plus cohort, particularly in relation to Alzheimer's and other dementia-related diseases. I appeal to the Minister for flexibility in the definition of the age, if possible.
	May we please give the older people's commissioner the power to investigate quite legitimately areas of policy that traverse non-devolved and devolved matters? Clearly, they will be of concern to older people in Wales.

Julie Morgan: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). I welcome the Bill and see it as part of the Labour Government in Wales and the Labour Government in Westminster delivering for older people in Wales. I welcome the fact that there is all-party support for the Bill. I was heavily involved in setting up the children's commissioner. I was on the Committee for the Care Standards Bill and then the Bill to set up the children's commissioner. I welcome the fact that the commissioner for older people has been modelled on the Children's Commissioner for Wales. As the previous speaker said, the role includes taking up complaints and fighting against injustice, but it also encompasses the power to advocate things in relation to wider issues.
	In Wales, the children's commissioner has generally been regarded as a success. The commissioner has been independent and the body has succeeded in influencing the Assembly. It has been highly critical of the Assembly over certain issues and has had a response. Peter Clarke has been seen as a champion for children and I hope that the person who holds the post that we are discussing will be seen as a champion for older people. I hope that the appointment process will draw in older people in the way that the appointment process for the children's commissioner drew in children. Children played a vital role in the appointment of the commissioner.
	We need a champion for older people in Wales because the elderly suffer from discrimination in many ways. A recent report by Age Concern said that 29 per cent. of people reported suffering age discrimination. That is more than any other type of discrimination. We are all living longer, which is a matter for rejoicing, but it does cause issues for society, particularly in relation to health and pensions. I am pleased that the Assembly's policies have emphasised keeping older people active and healthy. The free bus travel, which was pioneered by the Assembly Member for my seat, Sue Essex, has been a huge success. My constituents have told me that it has enabled many of them to travel around, be active and get out in a way that they have not been able to do before. In the same way, the free swimming for older people is a positive affirmation of how older people can keep active and play a valuable role in society. The appointment of a commissioner for older people will emphasise the positive, valued contribution that older people make to society, as well as looking at all the problems that can arise in the health care service and the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) mentioned.
	I want to raise a few specific points about the Bill with the Minister. Some of them have been covered already by several speakers and by the Secretary of State in his introduction. One of the main concerns for elderly people is finance in old age. We know that Wales, on the whole, is a poor country and many elderly people live in poverty. I strongly support the Government's White Paper. It is a good basis on which to move forward for the future. It is important to recognise what a big step that White Paper is. If we look at the situation of women, we see that they have fared badly with pensions. We all know why that is: they have been looking after children or elderly people and have not been able to build up a pension contribution record.
	It is difficult to separate the different strands in people's livesfinance, caring and health needs. As other speakers have said, some of those issues are devolved and some are not. It would be helpful if, when he responds, the Minister could again spell out the routes by which those different aspects of people's lives can be dealt with by the different people who are taking responsibility for them. We went through the debate about devolved and non-devolved issues when the children's commissioner was set up and I do not want to go on about it any more today. However, the reason these different problems have surfaced when setting up the children's commissioner, and now this commissioner, is linked to the devolution settlement. We have to find practical ways forward and the children's commissioner has done that, but I would be grateful if the Minister could go over what mechanisms are going to be used.
	The other point that I wanted to raise was about how the commissioner will relate to similar posts, such as the ombudsman who is in post at the moment and, in particular, the new equality and human rights commission, which is not mentioned in the Bill because it has not been set up yet. Given that that commission will have a specific responsibility for age discrimination, it is important that clear links are established between the two bodies. I assume that thought has been given to how they will relate to each other.
	There is also the issue of support for the commissioner. As other speakers have said, this is the first post of its kind in the UK and possibly in the world. I hope that the other countries in the UK will follow, as happened with the children's commissioner. However, when the children's commissioner took up his post, there was an established network of children's commissioners and ombudsmen throughout Europe and the world. Long before the children's commissioner was appointed, I can remember an inspirational meeting in Cardiff with the Danish children's ombudsman, at which the idea of a children's commissioner in Wales was raised. When the appointment was made, the children's commissioner had a network to relate to immediately and he was able to link in to the sort of issues that were being discussed on that network. He was able to get support from that organisation. He also relates to the children's commissioners who have been appointed in all the other devolved bodies in the UK and now in England. It is quite important to think about where the commissioner for older people will fit in. Who will he relate to, who will support him, who will raise the issues and what will there be agreement on?
	It is important that the commissioner makes links with elderly people in the different ethnic communities in Wales. I know that, older people in many of those communities are isolated, particularly if they cannot speak the language. It is important that the commissioner is for everybody in Wales, including the ethnic communities.
	I hope that the commissioner will campaign on general issues, as well as dealing with problems in care homes and things that have to be put right. I hope that he will be able to campaign for a general improvement in the community and society. I know that one of the main issues that came up when Peter Clarke was going round talking to children about what was most important to them was the state of school toilets. He has campaigned about toilets and, in my area, there has been a considerable improvement in the toilets for children. I hope that the same thing will happen with elderly people.
	One of the issues that elderly people bring up a lot with me is the lack of local facilities. As do many other people in the community, they bemoan the loss of small corner shops and the demise of small local shopping centres. I attended a packed meeting in the week before last in Birchgrove, which is in the Heath area of my constituency. Many of the people at the meeting were elderly, and they were protesting about another Tesco Extra coming to a street in the Heath outside the main shopping area. They fear that the local corner shops that they can get to easily will disappear because those shops will not be able to compete. They thus worry that they will lose the personal service that they receive. A lot of the worry about post offices came from elderly people who depended on being able to get to their local facilities.
	I hope that the commissioner for older people will take up such issues because they affect the quality of life of many elderly people. Many such people have a good pattern to their lives. They go down to the local shop to get a newspaper and groceries, but that pattern of life has been disrupted in our area by the demise of some of the local shopping centres.
	The Bill is good. We need to discuss aspects of it further, but they really relate to the fact that devolution has happened and we have an Assembly in Wales. We need to try to work out a way of dealing with devolved and non-devolved matters. I support the Bill.

David Jones: As the father of two extremely avid Wrexham supporters, I assure the Secretary of State and everyone else in the Chamber that I will not detain the House any longer than is absolutely necessary.
	We have had an interesting debate. It is clear that the Bill has received a broad welcome from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, it would be strange if that was not the case. The problems faced by older people in Wales and, indeed, the whole of the United Kingdom are well known and have been touched on by many hon. Members. Poor housing, poor nutrition, inadequate transport services and employment discrimination are but a few of the problems faced by older people, yet older people canand doplay an important role in our national life. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) pointed out, many of them are extremely active and run businesses well beyond what would otherwise be their retirement age.
	If the commissioner can make a difference that will improve the lives of older people, the role will be greatly welcomed in Wales. The proposal of appointing a champion for older people is thus broadly welcomed among Conservative Members, but I have to echo the note of caution and concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). Such caution was also expressed in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Roberts of Conwy and by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) in the Chamber today. The note of caution is that we must not expect the commissioner to be able to achieve too much.
	As the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr eloquently pointed out, the commissioner's functions will be confined to devolved matters. That is the significant weakness of the Bill because the commissioner will effectively be able to do nothing whatever to intervene formally in respect of many aspects of life that are of specific concern to older people, two prime examples of which are crime and pensions. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) pointed out that under the Bill as drafted, it would not be possible for the commissioner to make any meaningful response to the recommendations of the Turner commission.
	Although pensioner poverty is a blight on the life of our nation, the commissioner will be virtually helpless to address concerns such as the consequences of the collapse of the Allied Steel and Wire pension fund, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his speech. I understand that informal channels will be opened up whereby the commissioner will be able to express concerns and advance the cases of pensioners such as those affected in that case, but it is perhaps surprising that the Government did not consider appointing a UK-wide commissioner, or at least, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr suggested, formalising the route by which the commissioner could approach UK Ministers. In the light of that, we should not be too ambitious. We must not expect the commissioner to be the ultimate answer to the ultimate question for older people in Wales. We must be realistic about the benefits that his appointment will bring.
	The commissioner will, however, be able to inquire into the effect on pensioners in Wales of the rising levels of council tax, so I hope that he will do that at the earliest possible moment. That matter was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire. We must not forget that Wales, uniquely, has experienced rebanding and the revaluation of dwelling houses, although pensioners in England have been spared that.

Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the average council tax in my area of Cardiff is lower post- revaluation than the council tax in Bristol?

David Jones: That might well be the case, but it is absolutely clear that if there had been no revaluation or rebanding, the hon. Lady's constituents would be paying even less.

Chris Ruane: Explain yourself.

David Jones: They would be paying less than is the case after rebanding or revaluation.

Chris Ruane: That is ups and downs.

David Jones: Well, from a sedentary position

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have such general, casual conversation. I think that the House has taken the point.

David Jones: We could to and fro on the point ad nauseam, but in my part of Wales, certainly, pensioners are paying significantly more as a result of revaluation and rebanding than would otherwise have been the case.
	I echo the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham by querying the powers that the commissioner will have. Clause 10 of the Bill sets up sweeping inquisitorial and quasi-judicial powers that will be backed up by a panoply of legal weapons, including the reference of individual cases to the High Court with the possible ultimate sanction of committing individuals to prison for contempt. Such weapons are very powerful and should notand will not, I am surebe used capriciously or lightly. We will thus probe in Committee how the powers will be used and in what circumstances that will happen. Indeed, those powers are not possessed by Ministers. Although it might be appropriate for the commissioner to have them, we will want reassurances from the Government about the manner and circumstances in which they may be deployed.
	My hon. Friend has already referred to the powers of entry in clause 13. Again, we will want clarification on how the powers may be used. There is specific worry about how the powers will interface with those that are currently vested in the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon), who has some experience of these matters.
	We can envisage circumstances in which both the commissioner and the inspectorate might be concerned about what was going on in a particular care home. It would be extraordinary and, indeed, ridiculous if both the commissioner and the inspectorate decided to exercise their comparable powers at the same time. We shall want to explore the matter further in Committee, but the Government may wish to consider whether, in cases in which the inspector is concerned about the activities of a care home, he should have power to call for an investigation by the care standards inspectorate. I see that the Minister is nodding. Presumably that is why the CSI is not among the organisations mentioned in schedule 1.
	We also have concerns about the staffing and funding of the commissioner's office. The Bill, when enacted, will establish a fairly sizeable bureaucracy. We will wish to know whether the size of that bureaucracy is justified. For example, paragraph 4 of schedule 1 provides that the commissioner must appoint a deputy commissioner. Why is that provision mandatory rather than permissive? Why does the commissioner need a deputy? Will he not already be adequately supported by the remaining, no doubt sizeable, staff who will be provided from his 1.5 million per annum budget? Does he really need a deputy who will no doubt be furnished with a sizeable support staff of his own? What added value will the deputy provide?
	Similarly, the commissioner is to be paid from ministerial budgets. Given that one of the commissioner's primary duties will be to scrutinise the actions and activities of Welsh Assembly Ministers, is it right that Ministers should be responsible for paying his salary and those of the members of his team? What safeguards does the Government propose to ensure that the suspicion does not arise that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
	Questions also arise over the commissioner's period of tenure. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 states that that will be a matter for regulations that will be made at some time in the future. The use of secondary legislation is something of an addiction of the Government's. One must ask why the period of tenure could not and should not be stated in the Bill. There seems to be no good reason for that, and we shall invite the Government's observations.
	There are other matters that concern us. For example, clause 19 establishes statutory defences of absolute and qualified privilege to actions for defamation in respect of many of the commissioner's activities. We will need to know why the commissioner should have such protection in every such case. He may, for example, make damaging criticisms of the activities of care home proprietors and staff while exercising his duties. Why should he have a defence of privilege if, as a result of his making allegations that subsequently turn out to be false, the lives and livelihoods of those people are blighted? With power comes responsibility, and, given the sweeping powers that are to be conferred on the commissionerI must beg to differ from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: this is not a toothless tiger, but a tiger with very sharp teethit is only right that he should be called to account if he causes damage in exercising those powers. Indeed, I see no reason why he should not be subject to an action for defamation.
	We share the broad welcome given to the Bill by Members, but we do not do so uncritically. We fear that from the bonfire of the quangos of which we have heard so much there has risen a new bureaucratic phoenix in the form of commissioners. Once the accusation was that Wales was quangoland; now it may fairly be suggested that it is rapidly becoming the fiefdom of commissioners. The more cynical might suggest that an important role of the commissioners would be to shoulder responsibilities that would otherwise fall on Ministers. We do not believe that that should happen. While it is welcome that Wales should have a commissioner who will champion the interests of older people, we would expect Ministers to act as champions for older people as well. If Ministers, whether here or in the Welsh Assembly, see that the interests of older people are being compromised, they should intervene and not simply leave it to the commissioner to take action. We, and the people of Wales, expect Ministers to be proactive and not just to await the criticism that may emanate from the commissioner.
	As I have said, we broadly support the Bill, but we do not do so uncritically. In Committee we will seek answers to the questions that I have asked and, no doubt, to others.

Nick Ainger: I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made. I appreciated both their content and their brevity, bearing in mind what may be happening from 5 pm onwards. I am grateful to the House for its general support for the Bill. A number of important issues have been raised, and I am sure that they will be discussed in Committee. I shall respond to some of the larger themes aired in the debate, particularly those related to non-devolved matters.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) asked what role the commissioner would have in relation to NICE reportsfor example, its report on drugs used to treat Alzheimer's disease. The commissioner would not be able to make direct representations to NICE, but would certainly be able to take up such matters if a Welsh health board either allowed or, more likely, did not allow drugs on which NICE had made recommendations to be prescribed. The commissioner would be able to raise matters relating to a NICE decision via that channel.
	The hon. Lady and others, including the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones), whom I welcome to the Front BenchI apologise for not having done so earlierquestioned the independence of the commissioner, given that the funding for the post would come directly from the Assembly, but in many cases the commissioner would be examining the policies and actions of the Assembly. The basic argument was that he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, the same arrangement applies to the children's commissioner and, as my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, North (Julie Morgan) and for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) pointed out, where necessary the children's commissioner has acted in a forthright way when dealing directly with Assembly actions and policies. I therefore do not think that the independence of the new commissioner will be fettered by the way in which his office is funded.

David Jones: I hear what the Minister says, but there will be a difference. At present, the Assembly is a body corporate and is responsible for paying the children's commissioner, but if the Government of Wales Bill is enacted that will cease to be the case. The Welsh Assembly Government will have their own budgets and the new commissioner will be paid from those ministerial budgets.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it would be an unwise Minister who cut the budget of a commissioner because he or she did not like a report that that commissioner had produced. I am sure that the commissioner will make that perfectly clear and that the Assembly would call a Minister who acted in that way to account. I believe that there are sufficient checks and balances to guarantee the independence of the commissioner.
	The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the commissioner's role would be similar to Ofwat's. The answer is no, it would not. Ofwat exists directly to protect the interests of water customers, whereas the role of the commissioner is to help and safeguard vulnerable older people and to improve the quality of life of all older people in Wales. That very different remit is clearly set out in the Bill.
	Another question raised by the hon. Lady, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), was why the Bill set the age threshold at 60. Both hon. Members spoke about age discrimination in work and said that, for many people, such discrimination starts before 60. The House should be aware that regulations on age discrimination in employment and training are being introduced, with effect from October 2006. Those regulations will be enforced by the new commission for equality and human rights. That is already being addressed. A limit must be set somewhere. If not, the number of people whom the commissioner would be covering would involve not only old or older people but younger people as well. I understand the idea of having flexibility, for example, but the real issue of age discrimination at work will be addressed by the commission for equality and human rights in terms of the regulations that it will be enforcing.
	The main issue raised by the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, my hon. Friend for Cardiff, North and the Member for Clwyd, West was that of the role of the commission in relation to non-devolved matters, which clearly affect older people in Wales, whether these issues involve pensions or even the Care Standards Act 2000, whatever it may be. There are issues in which older people will clearly be interested.
	The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire asked about the pensions White Paper and other matters. He went on to ask about the role that the commissioner would play in that context. He will be able to give his view on the proposals set out in the White Paper. Given who he is, and under clause 9, it would be possible to carry out research. That would lead to an authoritative contribution to the White Paper. He, like anyone else in the United Kingdom, will be able to make a direct and authoritative response to the White Paper. His position would clearly carry weight.
	Clause 9 would allow, as I have said, research to be carried out, even in areas where the issue was non-devolved. A report would be made to the Assembly, which it could take up directly with the relevant UK Department. Alternatively, as we have said in relation to the Children's Commissioner for Wales, if he wanted to report to my right hon. Friend or myself, we could take up the matter. The important thing is that he is not fettered from carrying out research if there is a real issue affecting pensioners in Wales because of the actions or legislation that are currently reserved. Representations could still be made, and those representations would carry a great deal of weight. I am sure that this is an issue to which we will return in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend made an extremely well-informed speech, given her long professional involvement in these matters. She cited some excellent examples of how the Children's Commissioner for Wales had been effective, and far more effective than the local authority or the ombudsman, for example, because he is seen as an advocate and someone genuinely representing children with particular problems.
	I am confident that when the older persons commissioner is appointed, he will be in exactly that position and will be seen as a great advocate for issues relating to older people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend asked some specific questions, particularly in relation to the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales. That name does not appear in the Bill and my hon. Friend is concerned that, therefore, the commissioner would not be able to investigate the actions of the CSIW. May I reassure her that, in fact, he can do so, because the Care Standards Inspectorate for Wales is accountable to the Assembly, which is covered by clause 3. If the commissioner is concerned about the actions of the CSIW, he can carry out investigations or make direct representations to the Assembly on behalf of any older person. I cannot comment directly on the Holly House case that my hon. Friend raised because, as she said, an appeal has been lodged with the tribunal. The commissioner could look at such issues, and if he found that the workings of the regulations under the Care Standards Act 2000 affected the welfare of individual residents, he could make representations to the Assembly. If the regulations were not working he could ask the Assembly to change them, or he could make representations to the relevant Department through the Assembly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or myself, so there are several channels to address those issues. I hope that my hon. Friend is happy with that explanation, but we can explore the matter in greater detail in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire raised the issue of joint working, and they were concerned about the working relationship between the public services ombudsman for Wales and the new equality and human rights commission. Those bodies must work together, because the new commission will have responsibility for tackling age discrimination and so on. The children's commissioner has a good relationship with other commissioners and the public services ombudsman, so I expect those bodies to develop links to avoid duplication and ensure that the new commission and the commission for older people are effective in exercising the powers given to them by the Government.
	May I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North that although the post of commissioner for older people is a new one, the commissioner will learn from the experience of the children's commissioner, whose work has received great support? No one has made any serious criticisms of the work that he has done, and the post is regarded as a huge step forward. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it has been copied in England.

Roger Williams: The Minister will accept that we have done nothing other than try to maximise the effect of the work of the new commissioner and, indeed, the children's commissioner. If the commissioner for older people receives a complaint about pensions, will he pass it on to the parliamentary ombudsman? How will he act in such cases?

Nick Ainger: It depends on the nature of the complaint, of course. Clearly, if it is about the payment of a pension and something is wrong, that would be an issue for the Department for Work and Pensions, and ultimately, if there was no satisfaction, the parliamentary ombudsman. However, if the complaint is about more general issues, perhaps affecting more than one individual, although the commissioner would need to receive a complaint initially from at least one pensioner or their representative, as I explained to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr, the commissioner could carry out whatever research he feels is reasonable and then make representations either through my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or me to the relevant Department or directly to the Assembly for it to make direct representation to the relevant body. That is the route that has come about.
	The hon. Members for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr and for Brecon and Radnorshire referred to council tax. Again, on the effect of the revaluation that has taken place, if the commissioner had been in place then, he could have made direct representations to the Assembly.
	The Bill to establish a commissioner for older people represents a landmark development in promoting policies for older people and is another example of how Wales is able to set an example, not only to the United Kingdom, but to the rest of Europe and possibly the wider world. The commissioner, as an ambassador and authority on older people's issues, is part of an overall strategy to ensure that the interests of older people are fully integrated into the mainstream policies of the Welsh Assembly Government. I look forward to the House's continuing support for this groundbreaking proposal, and I commend the Bill to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

COMMISSIONER FOR OLDER PEOPLE (WALES) BILL  [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [ Lords]:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	2. The proviso in paragraph (2)(ii) of Standing Order No. 86 (nomination of Standing Committee where a Bill relates exclusively to Wales) shall not apply to the Bill.
	 Proceedings in Standing Committee
	3. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 29th June 2006.
	4. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	5. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	6. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	7. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	8. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any Message from the Lords) may be programmed. [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

COMMISSIONER FOR OLDER PEOPLE (WALES) BILL  [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Commissioner for Older People (Wales) Bill [ Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.  [Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

UK HYDROGRAPHIC OFFICE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. Roy.]

Jeremy Browne: On a day when the nation holds its breath and hopes to become a world beater, it is particularly appropriate that we have the opportunity over the next half hour or so to debate an aspect of Britain in which we are already world beaters. I refer to the Hydyrographic Office, which is based in Taunton.
	It may be helpful to start by explaining what the Hydrographic Office is, as some people do not know. What it doesI put it in layman's terms, claiming no scientific expertise myselfis chart the oceans, seas and coastlines of the world. If we imagine an Ordnance Survey-style map with contours showing the relief and lie of the land, that is what the Hydrographic Office produces, but for underwater regions. It is a constantly evolving task, as significant movements constantly occur through sandbanks, pebbles and other underwater changes. A good topical example is the tsunami, which had a dramatic impact on the ocean floor in that part of the world. Some areas need to be mapped because the water is particularly shallow or there may be rocks just under the surface that pose a danger to shipping.
	The Hydrographic Office was set up by George III in 1795. Britain was losing too many ships at sea, and the Hydrographic Office was seen as a necessary response. The first chart was produced in 1800 and the office has gone from strength to strength ever since. Anyone who visits the Hydrographic OfficeI hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Minister will have that opportunitywill see some fascinating artefacts. For example, the first ever map of New Zealand, drawn by Captain Cook, can be seen there. It was drawn before satellite technology and other devices made it so much easier to produce maps to such a high standard. It is a remarkable historical document, which puts into perspective the long service of the Hydrographic Officenow a world beater.
	In using the term world beater, I do not exaggerate because few countries aspire to chart the world's oceans. Most countries with a coastline cover the miles close to their own coasts and particularly concentrate on areas with heavy shipping such as the entrances to ports. However, there are very few countries across the world that aspire to perform the task with excellencethe United States, Russia and France to some extent, and the United Kingdom. Most people in the United States, Russia and France would accept that the United Kingdom has the most eminent and professionally drawn charts. Commercial practices bear that out. Shipping companies throughout the world, many of which have no direct link with the UK, buy the charts for their shipping from the Hydrographic Office based in Taunton.
	At the last general election, the Hydrographic Office loomed fairly large as an election issue in Taunton. The James review commissioned by the previous leader of the Conservative party recommended, as one of the proposals adopted and accepted by the leader of the Conservative party at that time, that the Hydrographic Office should be privatised.
	There are many compelling reasons why that would not be a wise course of action. I do not intend to dwell on them at length, but there are issues in relation to reciprocal arrangements with other countries, and possible problems with insurance liabilities which are potentially enormous for the Hydrographic Office. The service is so successful and so popular that it makes money, so the case for privatising it on efficiency grounds is less attractive than in other parts of the public sector. Others may wish to contribute their thoughts on the ownership issue, but I shall not dwell on it.
	Instead, I shall focus on the possibility that the Hydrographic Office will be moved from Taunton to a proposed new site next to the Met Office in Exeter. I shall suggest three reasons why I hope that the Government and the Ministry of Defence will give much thought to that proposal and reject it. The first relates to jobs and the economy of Taunton. People often ask me who are the big employers in my constituency. We have some fairly large private sector employersfor example, Relyon, a bed making company in Wellington in my constituency, and Swallowfield, a company that makes aerosols, also located in Wellington, both of which employ hundreds of people. If either of those were to close or move, that would be extremely damaging to our local economy.
	In Taunton, interestingly, there is no single big private sector employer. There are lots of smaller service-type jobs, but because it is the county town for Somerset, most of the jobs in Taunton reflect that status. The county council is a significant employer. Musgrove Park hospital, which serves most of Somerset and some parts of Devon as well, is a big employer, and the UK Hydrographic Office is a very large and significant employer. It employs around 1,000 people in the town and those jobs are extremely varied.

David Taylor: I visit Taunton frequently. My daughter lives there, is an accountant and works in the area. A member of my family circle works at the Hydrographic Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the key characteristics that indicates that Taunton benefits significantly from the presence of the Hydrographic Office is not just the number of jobs, but the range of high skilled jobs that it provides? That lifts the otherwise middling levels of income available from many other employers in the area.

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is not only extremely helpful, but extremely well informed. I was about to make that point. A large number of the jobs at the Hydrographic Office are highly skilled jobs. It is a problem in an area like Somerset to keep such skills and such levels of pay in our area. We have many jobs. Compared with other parts of the country, we do not have a particular problem with unemployment. We have a bigger problem offering the career levels that mean that educated people with good qualifications do not have to go and live in Bristol or London, but can stay in Taunton and bring up their families there because suitable jobs are available in the locality. There are hundreds of jobs of that type at the Hydrographic Office, which has a beneficial knock-on effect on shopping and other services in Taunton.

Kevan Jones: As a member of the Defence Committee, I am impressed by the work of the Hydrographic Office. However, if savings could be made by, for example, merging the Hydrographic Office with the Met Office and moving the Hydrographic Office from Taunton, why should my constituents in North Durham pay a premium for keeping employment in Taunton?

Jeremy Browne: That is a good point. I am vigilant in trying to ensure that public spending is as efficient as possible. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I hope to cover that point later in my speech.
	The Hydrographic Office provides not only hundreds of skilled jobs, but a wide variety of jobs. Most hon. Members would accept that those who hold the maintenance and cleaning positions will not want to relocate or to commute a long distance. Furthermore, the Hydrographic Office is based in east Taunton, where it is surrounded by estates such as Halcon, Lambrook and the Lane, which are some of the poorest parts of Somerset. For those jobs to be available within walking distance of those people's homes is an important stimulus to wealth creation in east Taunton.
	It has been suggested that people who live in Taunton will be able to commute because Exeter is only 35 miles down the M5. I accept that a lot of the senior people would choose to commute in those circumstances, but a lot of the junior people would not. A lot of the people in the lower paid jobs at the Hydrographic Office would not think a 70-mile round trip each day either affordable or desirable, so those jobs would be filled by people who live in Exeter rather than by people who live in Taunton. Furthermore, the commuters would eventually retire and be replaced by people who would move not to Taunton, but to Exeter. Over time, those 1,000 jobs would be whittled away until Taunton derives no economic benefit from having previously had the Hydrographic Office.
	We are hearing more from the Government about global warming and the need to reduce car use, which is sensible, so it seems perverse that one of the arguments for moving the service is that people will be able to drive considerable distances to get there.

David Taylor: I was happy to co-sponsor the hon. Gentleman's early-day motion 2328 last week, which is an admirable prcis of the case that he is making. Will he say a word or two in the next three or four hours before the House rises on how the news broke? Were employees or the local MP given any early indication of the news, or did the news drop out of the blue sky and into the weekly paper?

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman has touched a raw nerve. Nobody formally notified me of the process.
	I have discussed how 1,000 people in Taunton are employed directly by the Hydrographic Office, which has a knock-on economic effect, but those are not any old 1,000 jobs. If 1,000 jobs were lost across the board, it would have a serious impact on the economy of our area, but its emotional effect on people in Taunton would be less profound than moving the Hydrographic Office, because the Hydrographic Office has been in Taunton for many years.
	The Hydrographic Office was partly moved to Taunton during the second world war, and it was moved in its entirety in the 1960s. Some families have worked there for generations, and people have an attachment and affinity to it. They have a great sense of pride in the fact that in Taunton we have not only a national but an international institutiona centre of world renown and excellence. I should like to thinkand I believe that most people in Taunton would accept thisthat there is a real affinity and link between the town and the service. If one of us went out into a street in London and said, What's the Hydrographic Office and what does it do?, I suspect that the person we chose to ask would not know the answer, but if we asked the same question of anybody in the street in Taunton, they would know because everyone has a very clear sense of connection to it.
	When I was first shown round a few years ago, I asked what struck me as an obvious, if possibly slightly rude, questionWhy on earth is the Hydrographic Office based in Taunton? The person who was showing me round said that one of the reasons why it was put there is that it is roughly equidistant between Plymouth and Portsmouth. I had never thought of it in those terms before. The other reason is that it has very good communication links. It is now on the M5 motorway and on an intercity train line. All those reasons apply just as much today, in fact even more so, as they did when the decision was taken to move the service from London to Taunton for security reasons during the second world war.
	The last of my three points is a slightly wider economic one. The Government have decided that it is necessary for there to be a large expansion in the number of houses in the south-west, with about a million extra houses. We hear a lot, in this House and elsewhere, about population growth in the south-east, but the south-west is another region that is growing very quickly, much of it as a result of inward migration from other parts of the United Kingdom. I accept the Government's argument that it would probably not be desirable to have those 1 million houses scattered in a random fashion across what is predominantly a rural region, and that it makes sense, in terms of building communities and economically, for them to be concentrated in hubs. One of the places that has been identified as a hub for extra housing and development is Taunton, largely because of the excellent communication links and geographical positioning that I mentioned.
	As a consequence, Taunton has been assigned more than 20,000 extra houses. Although there is a need for extra house building, many associated issues and problems may arise from that extra development in terms of traffic congestion and extra pressure on amenities such as schools and the hospital, which has a very limited site and might have difficulty expanding to cope with those extra numbers. Furthermore, the character of what is essentially a county town will be changed, some may think for the better, some may think for the worse, by being expanded to that extent. Some people are uncomfortable about it, but by and large they accept that it will happen. However, the quid pro quo for the extra congestion and extra pressure on public services should be that it will mean more jobs, more prosperity, and more opportunities for people living in the town. If we are to get all the downsides of expansion without the upsides, people in Taunton have a right to say, Wait a secondthis isn't treating us fairly or even-handedly.
	If a private company was taking such a decision to relocate its jobs, I could have strong views about that, but my powers of influence, and those of the Government, would be limited. However, that is not so in this case. The Government are at risk of running two completely contrary policies in two Departments. One Department is earmarking Taunton for extra expansion, extra development and extra jobs, thereby making it an economic centre, while another Department, the Ministry of Defence, runs the risk of taking away precisely the sort of high-value jobs that it is envisaged that the people living in all these extra houses will be doing.

Kevan Jones: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Defence Committee has been conducting an inquiry about the Met Office and I have attended the evidence sittings. Unless I have missed anything that he or my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) have picked up about an immediate plan to move the Hydrographic Office, the only evidence that we have taken so far about that and the only reference to it came from a former chief executive who left the Met Office under a bit of a cloud. Can the hon. Gentleman provide evidence that, for example, the Minister deliberately did not tell the Select Committee when he appeared before us a few weeks ago that an announcement had been made? Clearly, the Minister did not say anything about that when he appeared before us.

Jeremy Browne: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is being, perhaps unintentionally, far more of a conspiracy theorist and more political about the matter than I am trying to be. All I know is that no one informed me, as Member of Parliament for Taunton, that moving the service was being considered.

Kevan Jones: I am not aware that any such consideration has taken place. At the Select Committee meeting a few weeks ago, only a former chief executive mentioned it. He referred to some plans that were made several years ago when the Met Office moved from Bracknell to Exeter. There were possible plans to move the Hydrographic Office. When the Minister and civil servants gave evidence to the Select Committee, there was no new announcement. The headlines may have been grabbed by a former chief executive who said that he believed that it was a good idea, but he clearly no longer speaks on behalf of the Ministry.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for that intervention because no one would be happier than me if the Minister got to his feet in a few moments and said, No fuss is necessary and you should have no worries. This is a wild goose chase. It's not going to happen. We could then all go home and I would be happy. People have asked me, Is this a done deal? Is the move to Exeter set in stone? I have said no. However, I understandand people at the Hydrographic Office have confirmed itthat the option is being considered.
	If that is the case, it is important that the Minister and other hon. Members appreciate that, when one is sitting in Westminster or Whitehall, it may not appear to make much difference whether the jobs and the office are based in Taunton or Exeter. After all, they are both a long way west and people here probably go down there only when they are on holiday. On a map of Britain, there is only an inch or two between Taunton and Exeter, so why should it matter that much in Whitehall? The purpose of the debate is to explain that, in Taunton, it matters a great deal, for the economic reasons and the emotional link that I outlined and because of the importance of conducting the town's expansion coherently and in a way that does not mean conflict between one part of Government and another.
	That brings me to the way forward and what I hope can be done. Representatives of the Met Office who are based in Exeter appear keen to make the case for locating the Hydrographic Office next to the Met Office, to which one could use the immortal political phrase, They would say that, wouldn't they? The instinct of most people, in business and the public sector, is to try to expand their domain. Having a bigger set-up in Exeter may feel more prestigious to the people who are based in the Met Office at the moment.
	However, I would argue that not only is the effect of such a move on Taunton potentially devastating, but it is not necessary in an era of global communications when people can exchange information by e-mail rapidly. If there is ever any need for people to meet face to face, that opportunity exists because Taunton and Exeter are fairly close to each other. The evidence suggests that it is not necessary to move because an excellent service is being provided at a profit at the moment, drawing on a pool of labour and good will in Taunton that is not available anywhere else in the country.
	I accept that most of the buildings where the Hydrographic Office is located are out of date. It has had one new building recently. The buildings are not dysfunctional but they are, in the current political phrase, not entirely fit for purpose. Doubtless the office could perform to an even higher standard if it were located in superior premises. I support that idea. Given that the Hydrographic Office is in not only a prestigious but an economically successful part of the Ministry of Defence, the case for investment in new buildings is compelling.
	I am open minded about relocating the Hydrographic Office within Taunton and about it being the centrepiece of another development elsewhere in the town. However, I would prefer it to stay in its current location in the eastern part of Taunton, not least because, according to most indicators, that is the poorest part of the town. Having the service and magnet for job creation in that part of town is a valuable consideration for those who live in Taunton.
	There is a need to invest in the service to improve in its physical facilities. There is not, however, a need to throw the baby out with the bathwater by relocating the service in its entirety. It has been in Taunton in its entirety for almost 40 years, and has had some presence there since the second world war. It has consistently performed to the highest standard; there are very few features of government that can be seen to have performed with such routine excellence over the years as the Hydrographic Office. The town has a huge emotional attachment to the office that goes back over the generations, and it has stood by the office, served it and been proud of it for many decades. The nation's interests, as well as those of Somerset and Taunton, would be well served by giving the town the opportunity to stand by, serve and have people working at the Hydrographic Office in Taunton for many more decades to come.

Tom Watson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on securing this Adjournment debate, and I welcome the opportunity to bring to the House's attention the splendid work done by the UK Hydrographic Office on behalf of the nation, and for the benefit of seafarers worldwide.
	The hon. Gentleman's speech showed that he has made a great debut in the House. Although he sits on the Liberal Democrat Benches, he is a very old friend, and I know that he has developed a reputation for advocating the interests of his constituents with a powerful voice. I must say to him, however, that although he has made a great entrance into the Chamber, he has not yet learned all the ropes. Last week, when he applied for an Adjournment debate, he should have known that there was a possibility that he would be on his feet while England were playing in the World cup. However, older hands seem to have let him off the hook this afternoon. I thank our friends from Wales who concluded their business early so that the true-blooded Englishmen in the House can conclude their affairs as well as taking on the serious issues of the UK Hydrographic Office. I say to them, Diolch i Gymru Thank you, Wales.
	Let me begin by agreeing wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that the Hydrographic Office is a huge national asset. I did not expect, when I became Minister for Veterans, that I would find myself responsible for safety of life at sea as well. But, on a personal level, I am immensely proud to have responsibility for what is, by common international consent, the best hydrographic authority in the world, bar none. The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the other countries that have noted that. Its reputation has been carefully built up over 200 years through the dedication and talent of its people.
	The need for a national hydrographic office arose at the end of the 18th century, when the Royal Navy required more reliable charts, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. He failed to mention, however, that in 1795, Alexander Dalrymple was appointed the first hydrographer of the Navy[Hon. Members: A fine man!] He was indeed. He was tasked with collecting, sorting and cataloguing charts and surveys and with producing the charts needed by the fleet. Since then, the Hydrographic Office has carved out its role as a world authority and the provider of data essential to safe marine navigation.
	The Hydrographic Office supplies most of the world's merchant fleet with charts and publications, and it is the UK's national hydrographic authority. Its mission is to meet national, defence and civil needs for charts and other hydrographic information in support of safe navigation. The Hydrographic Office also discharges the Government's responsibility under the UN convention on the safety of life at sea. This includes providing round-the-clock radio navigational warnings as part of an international network. Through all those endeavours, the Hydrographic Office is instrumental in keeping safe the lives of millions of mariners.

David Taylor: Would the Minister say, in his encomium to the Hydrographic Office, that it is indeed fit for purpose? Will hea young, talented and aspiring Ministerresist the ministerial merger mania that seems to affect other people of his category when they get their hands of the levers of state? Will he lay to rest, at least for the time being, the rumours to which the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) referred?

Tom Watson: What a pleasant surprise it is to discover that, and how lucky I am that, my hon. Friend's daughter works for the UK Hydrographic Office.

David Taylor: No, she works near Taunton; it is a colleague of hers who works there.

Tom Watson: My hon. Friend's daughter's friend works for the UK Hydrographic Office and has apprised him of the excellent work it does. If my hon. Friend allows me to develop my argument a little further, he might get the answer that he is looking for; then again, he might not.
	With about 1,000 staff, including many highly skilled cartographers and geographic information specialists, the Hydrographic Office is one of the largest employers in Somerset, so the point that the hon. Member for Taunton makes about its importance to his constituency is well made; I understand that argument. The Hydrographic Office is an organisation with an international outlook, in keeping with the international nature of the world merchant fleet that it supports, yet it has still been working to raise its profile and become more involved in the local community. Judging by the response to speculation in the local press, that has obviously been very successful.  [ Interruption. ] That story has even found its way to Leicestershire and brought Members to the Chamber from as far away as the north-east to discuss the UKHO's future.
	By any standards, therefore, the UKHO has been a huge success, and I am determined that my Department build on that. However, for my Department to do so, the organisation needs to face new challenges, including stronger international competition and the growing market for digital, rather than paper, products. Given those challenges, we are thinking carefully about the future of the UKHO, and whether its status as a trading fund continues to be the best way of building a positive and successful future. It is right that we should think about such issues, especially at a time when the Government are carrying out the comprehensive spending review.

Fraser Kemp: I understand the emphasis on moving toward digital, but does my hon. Friend agree that paper charts and knowing how to read them remain essential, and that we should not go the whole way towards electronic methods, because there are dangers in doing so? I speak as someone who, during the parliamentary recess, navigated Loch Teacuisone of the remotest lochs in the UKusing a 1934 paper chart. It is important that paper charts continue to play a significant part in the nation's seafaring ways.

Tom Watson: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend has a reputation for being a salty sea dog; he is a great seafarer and mariner and I pay tribute to his skills. When I tested the argument for moving to digital technology with the chief executive of the UK Hydrographic Office, he told me thatunlike in the case of ordnance survey mapping, where there has been a transition to digital mappingmariners still place a traditional value on maps, and that many still prefer them to digital ones. So my hon. Friend's point is a good one well made.
	As I was saying, it is right that we think about these issues, especially at a time when the Government are carrying out the comprehensive spending review. For that reason, my Department is considering the future of all its trading funds as part of a wider examination of defence support functions, in order to maximise the resources that we can make available to the front line. The consideration that we are giving to the future of the UKHO is thus not only our duty to the organisation and its staff, but is part of a wider obligation to the taxpayer that I hope all hon. Members recognise.
	In view of the points made by the hon. Member for Taunton, it might help if I disentangle some of the facts from the speculation. To begin with, in effect, we are carrying out some pre-thinking [Interruption.] Bear with me. We are carrying out such thinking to determine whether it is worth instituting a formal review and, if so, what ground it should cover. As I have said, the basic issue is whether trading fund status is the best status to enable the UKHO to succeed as a provider of key Government services and as a successful commercial concern.

Jeremy Browne: Two issues arise from the Minister's remarks. How long will the pre-thinkingand, indeed, the post-thinkingtake, and is he saying that what is at issue is the structure and that the location is not in question and will remain in Taunton regardless of the conclusions of the pre-thinking process?

Tom Watson: Let me do some pre-thinking and answer his question in a little while.
	The outcome of that work has not yet been presented to me, although I expect to see it in the next few weeks. When I do, I will weigh the arguments presented and decide for myself what steps to take next.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful for the insight into my hon. Friend's pre-thinking, which is obviously lacking in other Departments. Will my hon. Friend also await the Defence Committee's report on the Met Office, which might want to comment on the issue? I would not want him to make decisions before the result of our deliberations over the past few months on this issue and the Met Office's future.

Tom Watson: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I am awaiting the report with some excitement.

David Taylor: My hon. Friend has introduced a fascinating new concept, but can he reassure us that pre-thinking and post-thinking are not substitute words for instinct and emotion? This decision has to be taken on rational grounds, and I am sure that with my hon. Friend at the helm and others charting the course, we will be able to find safe haven at the end of the day.

Tom Watson: I can assure my hon. Friend that my pre-thinking will be rational. I will of course write to the hon. Member for Taunton to let him know my conclusion. He mentioned being kept informed and I will ensure that that happens at all stages. If he needs to come and speak to me or officials about it, I make him the offer to do so, because I would like him to be involved in the process.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for that offer. I also have a meeting with the outgoing chief executive of UKHO tomorrow. His replacement starts in a month's time and I intend to keep in close touch with him as well. Through the Minister, may I make an offer to all the members of the Defence Committee to come down to Taunton, before they start making recommendations, and spend an induction day at UKHO so that they can see the expertise and the standards of service? Members of the Committee might also be able to speak to some of the people in Taunton who do not work at UKHO to gain an understanding of the affection for and affinity with the service that the town has.

Tom Watson: The best way to answer that is to undertake to send a copy of  Hansard to the Chairman of the Defence Committee.
	Let me also take this opportunity to give a categorical assurance that no secret decisions are involved. There is no hidden agenda and I am clear that trading fund status has brought many benefits to UKHO, to the Ministry of Defence and to the taxpayer more widely. I would therefore need to be convinced by evidence and facts that there was a case to tinker with what historically has been a successful structure. Against that, however, I can see a potential argument that a status closer to the private sector might give greater assurance of commercial success in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. It is right therefore that we examine that idea a little further. That is what we are now doing. A compelling case for change would have to be made, and so far I have not seen the evidence to make that case.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the separate question of the possible relocation of the Hydrographic Office. The Hydrographic Office has indeed identified that its current premises are ageing and coming to the end of their useful life. It is, therefore, examining options for the future. In order to ensure the best overall outcome, it is rightly looking at a range of options, including both redevelopment of its current siteas the hon. Gentleman mentionedand relocation. The work will take a few months to complete. Again, no conclusions have been reached. The final decision will be taken by me, as the ministerial owner, but I hope that the hon. Member for Taunton will contribute to the consultation process. As the House would expect, my decision will be based on what will provide the most effective and efficient solution, and deliver best value for money to the taxpayer.
	The hon. Member for Taunton highlighted the possibility of co-locating UKHO with the Met Office in Exeter. That is one of the possibilities being looked at, since it is obviously logical to explore relocation to an existing MOD site in the same broad geographic area. I take his point about motorway journeys, and I understand Taunton's geography, but colleagues would rightly be surprised if we were not considering the possibility as part of our overall examination of the current facilities. As I made clear to the Defence Committee, I shall reach a decision based on the evidence and the business case when they are complete and presented to me.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that neither he nor his officials have ever mentioned the co-location possibility in evidence to the Defence Committee? Does he agree that the only person who thought it a good idea was a previous chief executive, who gave evidence when neither my hon. Friend nor his officials were present?

Tom Watson: I shall have to check the transcript, but I am sure that I said that I needed to see a compelling case for change in respect of the UKHO, and I reiterate that now.
	I assure the hon. Member for Taunton that I will not be blind to his views or those of his constituents on the matter, and that I shall weigh very carefully the points that he has put to me so fully and forthrightly this afternoon. I give him an undertaking that I shall listen equally closely to any further representations that he or other hon. Members wish to make nearer the time of a decision.
	Let me also clarify that the issue of possible relocation to Exeter is one matter, but that an organisational merger with the Met Office is quite another. Again, the Defence Committee has heard evidence in favour of that reorganisation from some quarters, and has urged that it be considered. As I confirmed to the Committee, we are looking at that option as part of our high-level consideration of the future of both the UKHO and the Met Office, but I repeat that no compelling case has been made to me in that respect either. Any decision in that regard will be based on the evidence provided by officials.
	In conclusion, I hope that my remarks this evening have clarified matters, and given the hon. Member for Taunton the assurances that he sought. For the longer term, we must await the outcome of the work that I have described, but I remain open to any further representations on the matter that he would like to make.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response to the debate, but I seek one further clarification. He said that the pre-thinking phase would last only a few weeks, but my constituents might ask about the date by which a firm decision about the UKHO's location and exact ownership status will be made. What should I tell them? The most important matter is the office's location: will a firm decision be made in a month, two months, next year or the year after that, or will the process drag on for a very long time?

Tom Watson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an exact time scale this afternoon, but when the recommendation arrives on my desk I will write to him about it.
	We all share the same goals for the Hydrographic Office: continued vibrancy, continued vitality and, above all, continued success. By working together, I know that we can secure a prosperous future for the office for the next 200 years, as well as for the staff who will be working there.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Four o'clock.